Cox, W.E. v O'Donnell, L.G

Link copied
Case Copied 38 min read

Re: WADE EWART COX
And: LAWRENCE GEORGE O'DONNELL and DAVID GLEN ROSSI
No. ACT G11 of 1990
FED No. 19
Administrative Law
(1992) 106 ALR 145
(1992) 34 FCR 42
(1992) 26 ALD 733

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Neaves J.(1)
CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Judicial review - Applicant when a serving commissioned officer of the Defence Force wounded in action in Vietnam - After further service in the Defence Force applicant tendered a resignation of his military office - Resignation accepted as from 3 January 1979 - Applicant seeking invalidity benefit under Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 (Cth) - Application to Chief of General Staff under s.37 of that Act for determination that, at the time the applicant was retired from Defence Force, grounds existed "on which he could have been retired on the ground of invalidity or of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties" - Whether s.37 applies to a member who retires at his own request - Long history of defective administrative decision-making in relation to question whether such grounds existed - Decision that grounds did not exist - Reasonable expectation that before decision made comprehensive and impartial medical review of applicant's medical condition at time of retirement would be carried out by independent medical practitioner - Expectation not fulfilled - Whether medical report relied on by decision-maker deficient - Whether deficiencies remedied - Whether reasons of decision-maker adequate.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), s.5

Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 (Cth), s.37

Century Metals and Mining N.L. v Yeomans (1989) 100 ALR 383

HEARING

CANBERRA

#DATE 5:2:1992

Counsel for the applicant: Mr R. Selby

Solicitors for the applicant: Macphillamy Cummins and Gibson

Counsel for the respondents: Mr P.A. Coppel

Solicitor for the respondents: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER

The decision made on 13 February 1990 by the first respondent that, at the time of the applicant's retirement from the Defence Force, grounds did not exist on which he could have been retired on the ground of invalidity or of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties be set aside.

The matter be remitted to the Chief of the General Staff, Army Office, Department of Defence for further consideration and for determination according to law.

The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the application.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

By his further amended application filed on 8 February 1991, Wade Ewart Cox ("the applicant") seeks, pursuant to the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ("the Judicial Review Act"), an order of review in respect of a decision made on 13 February 1990 by Lieutenant-General Lawrence George O'Donnell, Chief of the General Staff, Army Office, Department of Defence ("the first respondent"). By that decision, which was made under s.37 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 (Cth) ("the Act"), the first respondent…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cox, W.E. v O'Donnell, L.G and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[1992] FCA 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Cox, a former commissioned officer in the Defence Force, was wounded in action during his service in Vietnam. After further service, he tendered his resignation which was accepted as of 3 January 1979. Cox subsequently sought invalidity benefit under the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 (Cth). He applied to the Chief of General Staff for a determination that at the time of his retirement, grounds existed for him to be retired on the ground of invalidity or physical or mental incapacity. The Chief of General Staff decided that such grounds did not exist, a decision Cox sought to have reviewed by the Federal Court.

The court was required to determine whether section 37 of the Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act 1973 (Cth) applied to a member who retires at their own request. Additionally, the court needed to assess if there was a reasonable expectation that a comprehensive and impartial medical review of Cox's condition at the time of his retirement would be conducted by an independent medical practitioner. The court also had to consider whether the medical report relied on by the decision-maker was deficient, and if so, whether any deficiencies were remedied. Finally, the court examined whether the reasons provided by the decision-maker were adequate.

The court found that section 37 of the Act applies to a member who retires at their own request. There was a reasonable expectation that an independent medical practitioner would conduct a comprehensive and impartial review of Cox's medical condition at the time of his retirement, which expectation was not fulfilled. The medical report relied on by the decision-maker was found to be deficient and these deficiencies were not remedied. The reasons provided by the decision-maker were also found to be inadequate. Consequently, the decision made by the Chief of General Staff on 13 February 1990 was set aside. The matter was remitted for further consideration and determination according to law. The respondents were ordered to pay Cox's costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision made on 13 February 1990 by the first respondent that, at the time of the applicant's retirement from the Defence Force, grounds did not exist on which he could have been retired on the ground of invalidity or of physical or mental incapacity to perform his duties be set aside.

The matter be remitted to the Chief of the General Staff, Army Office, Department of Defence for further consideration and for determination according to law.

The respondents pay the applicant's costs of the application.

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

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.