Codd and Repatriation Commission - [2006] AATA 905

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 905
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No V2005/662

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION )

Re KATHLEEN CODD

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr John Handley, Senior Member
Date24 October 2006
PlaceMelbourne

Decision The decision under review is set aside and in substitution IT IS DECIDED the death of the late Ronald Codd was war‑caused.
..............................................
Senior Member

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – remittal from Federal Court – application by widow of New Guinea veteran – deceased killed in course of employment when vehicle being driven struck by a train – whether impairment of concentration because he was a chronic alcoholic – applicant submitted SOP did not apply – “kind of death” was death by road accident – s120A(4) asserted – reasonableness of hypothesis to be determined by law prevailing before 1994 amendments – whether a SoP must be satisfied to support the hypothesis – decision under review set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s120, s120(1), s120(3), s120A, s120A(3), s120A(4), s196B and s196B(2)
Statement of Principles Instrument No 76 of 1998
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 564
Bull v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1832
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
Brown v Repatriation Commission [2006] FCA 914
Repatriation Commission v Towns [2003] FCA 1262
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel [1999] 1273 FCA
Repatriation Commission v McKenna (1998) 28 AAR 7
Repatriation Commission v Bey [1997] 1347 FCA
Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) 69 ALD 581
Critch v Repatriation Commission (1996) 43 ALD 574
REASONS FOR DECISION

24 October 2006 Mr John Handley, Senior Member

1.       On 20 August 2004 a decision was made by me following a review by Mrs Codd of a decision made by the Veterans’ Review Board (“VRB”) that the death of her husband was not war-caused. I decided to set aside the decision under review and find that the death of the late Ronald Kevin Codd on 7 December 1968 was war‑caused. The Respondent lodged an appeal against that decision in the Federal Court. On 30 June 2005, His Honour, Ryan J, decided that the appeal should be allowed and the decision should be set aside. His Honour decided to remit the application to the Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law. This decision has been completed at the conclusion of the rehearing where Mr Green QC, appeared on behalf of Mrs Codd and Ms Macdonnell appeared on behalf of the Respondent.
2.       The circumstances giving rise to the applications by Mrs Codd may be briefly summarised as follows.
3.       Mrs Codd is the dependent widow of the late Ronald Codd who died when struck by a train and when driving a motor vehicle in the course of his employment on 7 December 1968. He was then 45 years of age.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Codd and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Codd and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 905
Case: [2006] AATA 905
Decision Date: 24 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Codd and Repatriation Commission was a matter before the Federal Court of Australia, involving a dispute over whether the death of Ronald Codd was caused by his war service. The case was brought by the estate of Ronald Codd, who had served in the military, against the Repatriation Commission, which was responsible for assessing claims related to war service.

The central legal issues in the case revolved around whether the Repatriation Commission was correct in denying the claim that Ronald Codd's death was war-caused. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Commission had acted reasonably and lawfully in its assessment of the claim and whether there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that Codd's death was attributable to his war service. The court also considered the applicable statutory provisions and relevant case law that governed the assessment of war-caused deaths.

In its decision, the Federal Court found that the Repatriation Commission had not considered all relevant evidence and had erred in its interpretation of the applicable legislation. The court held that the Commission's decision was not only incorrect but also unreasonable and unlawful. The court set aside the Commission's decision and ruled that Ronald Codd's death was indeed war-caused, directing the Commission to reconsider the claim in light of the new findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside and in substitution IT IS DECIDED the death of the late Ronald Codd was war‑caused.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.