Bull v Repatriation Commission

[2001] FCA 823

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Bull v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCR 823

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 120(1), 120(3), 120A
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44

Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 applied
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564 applied
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 applied
Repatriation Commission v Stares (1996) 66 FCR 594 referred to
Smith v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 1484 referred to
Lowerson v Repatriation Commission (1994) 50 FCR 252 referred to
Hansell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 38 FCR 202 referred to
Webb v Repatriation Commission (1988) 19 FCR 139 referred to
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517 followed
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364 referred to
Repatriation Commission v Owens (1996) 70 ALJR 905 followed
Owens v Repatriation Commission (1994) 35 ALD 278 referred to
Owens v Repatriation Commission (1995) 59 FCR 559 referred to

JOAN BULL v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
N 192 OF 2001

GYLES J
SYDNEY

29 JUNE 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 192 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	JOAN BULL APPLICANT
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	29 JUNE 2001
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the costs of the respondent.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 192 OF 2001

BETWEEN:	JOAN BULL APPLICANT
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	29 JUNE 2001
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 27 April 1998 the applicant lodged a claim under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”) for a widow’s pension in respect of the death of her husband, James Arnold Bull. The claim was refused by the Repatriation Commission and, on review, by the Veterans’ Review Board. An application was then made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). On 2 February 2001 the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.

2. On 2 March 2001 the applicant filed a notice of appeal to this Court pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”). The question of law raised in the notice of appeal is whether the Tribunal erred in law in its application of s 120 of the Act. The grounds stated were:

   “… misapplying the test of whether a reasonable hypothesis had been raised on the material before it in terms of subsection 120(3) of the Act, in that the Tribunal erred as to what constitutes at law a hypothesis that is “too tenuous”.”

3. The cause of Mr Bull’s death was a cerebrovascular accident and, pursuant to the relevant Statement of Principles pursuant to s 120A of the Act, factors that can as a minimum exist before it can be said that a reasonable hypothesis has been raised connecting the death from that cause with the circumstances of the person’s…