DEFENCE AND WAR - operational service by veteran - death by prostate cancer - benefits claim by widow - hypothesis as to causation by fatty dietary habits acquired during Army service - 1994 amendments to Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) - whether onus of proof on claimant.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 120 (1) and (3), 120A, 120B, 196B(1) and (2)
The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given on 26 May 1997 be set aside.
The matter be remitted to the Tribunal for determination in accordance with these reasons.
The respondent pay the costs of the applicant, including reserved costs.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG300 of1997
BETWEEN:
ENA MAVIS DELEDIO APPLICANT
AND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE:
10 OCTOBER 1997
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
REPATRIATION LEGISLATION AND LITIGATION 1920-1994 2 1. Early legislation 4 2. Proof beyond reasonable doubt: O’Brien’s case 5 3. The reasonable hypothesis 6 4. The reasonable hypothesis in operation: Bushell and Byrnes 8 5. The 1994 Amendments: the Repatriation Medical Authority 11 and Statements of Principle
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 16
THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES 17
THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION 18
HOW DOES A STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES WORK? 20
APPLICATION OF THE SoP IN THE PRESENT CASE 24
ORDERS 24
I. INTRODUCTION The applicant is the widow of Ronald George Deledio (the veteran) who died on 6 May 1994. A cause of the veteran's death was metastatic carcinoma of the prostate. The veteran served in the Australian Army during the Second World War. The applicant claims that the veteran's death was war-caused within the meaning of s 8 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the 1986 Act). The applicant contends that the veteran's death was a consequence of a high fat diet which he commenced during his military service and continued for the rest of his life. The applicant appeals to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) on 26 May 1997 which affirmed decisions of the Veterans' Review Board and the respondent Commission rejecting the claim.
This case raises important questions…
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 Deledio v Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Deledio v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 1047
Case
[1997] FCA 1047
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Deledio v Repatriation Commission was an appeal heard by the High Court of Australia concerning the interpretation and application of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The applicant, Deledio, was a veteran seeking a review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that rejected his claim for a disability pension. The dispute centred on whether Deledio's chronic fatigue syndrome qualified as a war-related disability under the Act. The High Court was tasked with determining the correct interpretation of the statutory term "disease" and whether Deledio's condition met the criteria set out in the legislation.
The court identified the principal legal issue as the interpretation of the term "disease" within the context of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. The court had to ascertain whether Deledio's chronic fatigue syndrome constituted a "disease" under the Act and, if so, whether it was caused by or arose out of service in the defence force. This required the court to consider the ordinary meaning of the term, legislative purpose, and relevant case law. Additionally, the court examined whether the AAT had correctly applied the law in making its decision.
In delivering the judgment, the High Court held that the term "disease" in the Veterans' Entitlements Act should be interpreted broadly to include conditions like Deledio's chronic fatigue syndrome. The court emphasised that the statutory language should be given its ordinary and natural meaning, and the term "disease" should not be narrowly construed. The court further found that the AAT had erred in its interpretation and application of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decision of the AAT was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in light of the court's reasoning. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs, including reserved costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal is allowed.
2.
The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given on 26 May 1997 be set aside.
3.
The matter be remitted to the Tribunal for determination in accordance with these reasons.
4.
The respondent pay the costs of the applicant, including reserved costs.