Davis v Veterans' Review Board

[2021] FCA 131

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Davis v Veterans’ Review Board [2021] FCA 131

File number:

QUD 389 of 2020

Judgment of:

LOGAN J

Date of judgment:

8 February 2021

Catchwords:

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Veterans’ Review Board – where applicant claims Board has delayed hearing – whether s 137 Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) relevant to delay – where Board offers to conduct hearing expeditiously – where question now academic – application dismissed

Legislation:

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth)

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 133A, 137

Cases cited:

Shafran v Repatriation Commission [2019] FCA 1833

Division:

General Division

Registry:

Queensland

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs:

8

Date of hearing:

8 February 2021

Counsel for the Applicant:

The applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

QUD 389 of 2020

BETWEEN:

ANDREW LEWIS DAVIS

Applicant

AND:

VETERANS' REVIEW BOARD

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 FEBRUARY 2021

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(REVISED FROM TRANSCRIPT)

LOGAN J:

1. Mr Andrew Lewis Davis (Mr Davis) rendered service to our country as a member of the Australian Defence Force from 28 November 2011 to 20 February 2019. As can be the way of things with military service, it is not without risk to the health, life and comfort of a defence member. In Mr Davis’ case, that particular consideration has manifested itself in the form of a claim for liability, rehabilitation and compensation under the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth) (the Act).

2. It is not necessary to detail the particular bases of the claim under that Act. The claim is one which has been determined by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Commission). As is his right, Mr Davis has sought the review by the Veterans’ Review Board (the Board) of that decision. He has been, to say the least, dissatisfied with the expedition with which the Board has treated his review application. Understandably in that regard, he has drawn attention to s 133A of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (Veterans’ Entitlements Act), which provides:

   Board’s objective

   In carrying out its functions, the Board must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of review that:

   (a)is accessible; and

   (b)is fair, just, economical, informal and quick; and

   (c)is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matter; and

   (d)promotes public trust and confidence in the decision-making of the Board.

3. That particular provision is not dissimilar to other provisions found in other Commonwealth legislation in relation to merits review bodies. It sets a particular parliamentary aspiration for a merits review body in terms of expedition, but it is not prescriptive as to a particular time within which, in this case, the Board, must determine on the merits a particular case.

4. In December last year, feeling, for…