Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 351
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2006/333
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re JUNE COLLINS Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member Bernard J McCabe and Mr S E Frost, Member Date2 May 2008
PlaceBrisbane (heard in Sydney)
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review. ..............................................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS – war widow's pension – "kind of death" – whether death war – caused – decision affirmed
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, ss 6A, 7, 13(1), 120(1), 120(3), 120A(1), 120A(3), 120A(4)
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission [1993] HCA 51; (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711; (2003) 37 AAR 383
Repatriation Commission v Codd [2007] FCA 877; (2007) 95 ALD 619
Repatriation Commission v Deledio [1998] FCA 391; (1998) 83 FCR 82
REASONS FOR DECISION
2 May 2008 Senior Member Bernard J McCabe and Mr S E Frost, Member Introduction
1. Mrs June Collins, the applicant, is the widow of Mr Donald Collins, the veteran. The veteran died on 30 March 2005 at the age of 83. Mrs Collins claimed a war widow's pension on the basis that her husband's death was war-caused. The Repatriation Commission (“the Commission”) refused the claim and the Veterans’ Review Board affirmed that refusal. Mrs Collins has applied to the Tribunal for a review of that refusal decision.
2. There are only two issues in dispute before the Tribunal. The first is the "kind of death" suffered by the veteran. The second is whether there is a connection between that kind of death and his war service.
3. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision under review. This means that Mrs Collins’ appeal is unsuccessful.
The veteran’s service history
4. The veteran served in the Royal Australian Air Force from 30 January 1943 until 18 January 1946 and this constitutes eligible war service as defined in s 7 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ("the Act"). Because he served overseas during World War II, the whole of his service constitutes operational service within s 6A of the Act.
Entitlement to a war widow’s pension
5. If the veteran’s death was war-caused, then the Commonwealth is liable to pay a pension by way of compensation to the applicant: s 13(1) of the Act. We must determine whether the death was war-caused having regard to ss 120 and 120A of the Act.
6. It is clear from these provisions, read together, that we must first determine the "kind of death" of the veteran before we consider the reasonableness of any hypothesis connecting the death with the circumstances of his war service. This is because the way in which we must test the reasonableness of any hypothesis depends on whether there is in force any Statement of Principles (“SoP”), determined by the Repatriation Medical Authority, in relation to the “kind of death” met by the veteran. If there is one, or more than one,…
Continue reading Collins and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Collins and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 351
- Case
- [2008] AATA 351
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the death of Mrs. Collins' husband was attributable to his war service. This hinged on interpreting sections 6A, 7, 13(1), 120(1), 120(3), 120A(1), 120A(3), and 120A(4) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the death resulted from injuries or diseases caused by or arising out of the war service, or if it was due to a pre-existing condition or other causes unrelated to the service. The Court also had to consider the relevant case law, including Byrnes v Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Commission v Hancock, Repatriation Commission v Codd, and Repatriation Commission v Deledio.
The Court examined the evidence and the SSAT's reasoning, finding that the SSAT had appropriately applied the statutory criteria and the relevant case law. The evidence indicated that Mrs. Collins' husband's death was due to a pre-existing medical condition that was not caused or exacerbated by his war service. The Court noted that the burden of proof rested on Mrs. Collins to demonstrate a causal link between the war service and the death. Given the absence of such evidence, the Court found no error in the SSAT's decision and affirmed it.
The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was correct and that Mrs. Collins' appeal should be dismissed. The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and Mrs. Collins was not entitled to the war widow's pension.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
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.