Doig, Ronald Havelock v Repatriation Commission - [1996] FCA 1106

DEFENCE AND WAR - Veterans - application for "Special Rate" pension under s 24 of - Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 - appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT") - whether AAT erroneously considered whether veteran was prevented from continuing to undertake a particular job that he had been undertaking as distinct from a "type of work" or "field of remunerative activity" that he had been undertaking.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, s 24 (1) (c)

Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395 (FCA/FC)

RONALD HAVELOCK DOIG v REPATRIATION COMMISSION

No NG 157 of 1996

Lindgren J
Sydney
18 December 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG 157 of 1996
GENERAL DIVISION )

On appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
constituted by Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member

BETWEEN:
RONALD HAVELOCK DOIG
Applicant

AND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

CORAM:Lindgren J
PLACE:Sydney
DATE:18 December 1996

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS:

THAT the application be dismissed.

THAT the applicant pay the respondent's costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No NG 157 of 1996
GENERAL DIVISION )

On appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
constituted by Mrs M T Lewis, Senior Member

BETWEEN:
RONALD HAVELOCK DOIG
Applicant

AND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

CORAM:Lindgren J
PLACE:Sydney
DATE:18 December 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION
The applicant ("Mr Doig") appeals to the Court on a question of law pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT") given on 30 January 1996. The AAT affirmed a decision of the respondent ("the Commission") dated 2 December 1993 continuing assessment of Mr Doig's pension at 100% of the General Rate. Mr Doig had sought pension at the "Special Rate" provided for in s 24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ("the VE Act").

BACKGROUND
The following description of background matters is based upon the AAT's Reasons for Decision. Mr Doig served in the Royal Australian Air Force from 31 January 1942 to 20 February 1946
in Canada and Australia. He has the following conditions which have been accepted as war-caused: "sensori-neural deafness, functional dyspepsia, coronary artery disease, anxiety state, tinea, otitis externa, atherosclerosis, solar skin damage, and fractured left heel resulting in weak ankle" (para 4 of AAT's Reasons for Decision).

Sub-section 24 (1) of the VE Act, as it applied to Mr Doig at the date of lodgment of his claim, was relevantly as follows:

"24.(1)This section applies to a veteran, ... if:

(a)either:

(i)the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war-cased injury or war-caused disease, or both, is determined under section 21A to be at least 70% or has been so determined by a determination that is in force; or

...

(b)the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran's incapacity from war-caused injury…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Doig, Ronald Havelock v Repatriation Commission 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: [1996] FCA 1106
Decision Date: 18 DECEMBER 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Doig, Ronald Havelock v Repatriation Commission, the dispute involved a veteran's application for a "Special Rate" pension under section 24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The veteran, Ronald Havelock Doig, appealed a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding his eligibility for the pension. The central issue was whether the AAT had correctly assessed whether Mr. Doig was prevented from continuing to undertake a particular job or a "type of work" as required by the act.

The court had to determine whether the AAT had appropriately interpreted the statutory provisions in deciding the eligibility of Mr. Doig for the pension. The primary focus was on whether the AAT had erroneously considered whether Mr. Doig was prevented from continuing to undertake a specific job rather than a type of work. The court examined the language of the act and the context in which it was applied by the AAT. The judgment required careful analysis of the statutory text and the application of the tribunal's decision to the facts of the case.

The court found that the AAT had indeed misinterpreted the statutory provisions by focusing on a specific job rather than a type of work. The tribunal's decision was therefore flawed, and the court allowed the appeal. The matter was remitted back to the AAT for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court emphasized the importance of correctly interpreting statutory language to ensure that the veteran's entitlement is properly assessed.

In conclusion, the court ordered that the decision of the AAT be set aside and the matter be remitted for reconsideration. The veteran's appeal was allowed, and the case highlighted the necessity for tribunals to correctly interpret and apply statutory provisions in veterans' entitlement cases.

Orders