Dunlop v Repatriation Commission

Case [2003] FCAFC 201


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dunlop v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 201

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – Appeal from primary Judge dismissing application for review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) decision – claim by appellant for war widow’s pension – AAT determined that death of veteran was not war-caused – AAT concluded that no reasonable hypothesis had been raised connecting the death of the veteran with the service rendered – primary Judge found no error in AAT’s decision – whether a reasonable hypothesis was raised on the material before the AAT – whether AAT provided adequate reasons – whether primary Judge erred

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 8, 9 and 120

East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517 referred to
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364 cited
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 discussed
Connors v Repatriation Commission (2000) 59 ALD 61 referred to
Repatriation Commission v McKenna (1998) 28 AAR 7 referred to
Hill v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 293 referred to
McAuliffe v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1992) 28 ALD 609 cited

ITA SYLVIA DUNLOP v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
V 845 OF 2002

SPENDER, TAMBERLIN AND KENNY JJ
MELBOURNE
27 AUGUST 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 845 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

ITA SYLVIA DUNLOP
APPELLANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SPENDER, TAMBERLIN & KENNY JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

27 AUGUST 2003

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal is dismissed.

2.        The appellant 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

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 845 OF 2002

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

ITA SYLVIA DUNLOP
APPELLANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

SPENDER, TAMBERLIN & KENNY JJ

DATE:

27 AUGUST 2003

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. This is an appeal from a judgment of Ryan J dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“AAT”) which determined that the death of Raymond Dunlop (“the veteran”) had not been war-caused. Raymond Dunlop was the husband of the appellant.  They were married on 12 December 1944.  The veteran committed suicide in 1972.

  2. The veteran was born on 25 April 1922.  He was graded as medically Class 1 on enlistment and served approximately twenty-two months in a regiment in Western Australia.  On 23 March 1944 he embarked at Townsville for operational service in Merauke, a small village on the south coast of (what was then) Dutch New Guinea, approximately sixty nautical miles north-west of the boundary with Papua.  After returning from war service in Merauke, the veteran served in infantry training battalions in New South Wales until his discharge on 20 November 1945.  He was diagnosed with depression in early 1970 and for a period of about six months he used anti-depressant tablets.  The veteran…

Continue reading Dunlop v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dunlop v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 201
Case
[2003] FCAFC 201
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Dunlop v Repatriation Commission, the appellant, Dunlop, sought a war widow's pension following the death of her husband, a veteran. The Commission initially denied the claim, finding the veteran's death unrelated to his military service. After appeals to the Veterans' Review Board and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), both affirmed the initial decision. Dunlop subsequently appealed to the court, which dismissed her appeal.

The primary legal issue was whether the Commission's decision to deny the pension, finding no service connection to the veteran's death, was justified. This involved assessing the evidence and determining if the Commission properly applied the relevant statutory provisions and considered all relevant factors in its decision-making process.

The court reviewed the extensive evidence, including the veteran's military service records and historical data. The court found that the Commission had adequately considered the evidence and correctly applied the relevant statutory criteria in reaching its decision. The court concluded that the Commission's findings were supported by the evidence and that there was no basis to overturn the decision.

The court dismissed Dunlop's appeal and ordered her to pay the Commission's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs.

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

SPENDER, TAMBERLIN AND KENNY JJ
On 2 October 1998 the appellant lodged a claim for a war widow’s pension and on 4 January 1999 the Repatriation Commission (“the Commission”) decided that the death of the veteran was not related to service. The appellant then appealed to the Veterans’ Review Board and on 21 October 1999 that Board affirmed the decision of the Commission. The appellant appealed that decision to the AAT on 8 December 1999 and on 17 May 2001 the AAT affirmed the Commission’s decision. The appellant then lodged a Notice of Appeal on 13 June 2001 to this Court which was dismissed on 15 November 2002 by Ryan J.THE AAT DECISION The relevant history is set out in the Appeal Book as follows:“So far as may be gleaned from the T-documents and from a large body of historical data provided by the respondent prior to the hearing – including the report and associated documents of Mr Piper a military historian - the deceased was an apprenticed ironworker when he was called up for service in the Army on 5 November 1941. He was then aged 19 years and 7 months. It appears that the deceased was the youngest in a family of 6 children. The deceased’s father served in the Great War as a soldier, but was mainly confined after discharge in the Repatriation General Hospital suffering from ‘shellshock’. The deceased rarely saw his father. It appears also that the deceased was close to his mother and sisters. He had a number of brothers who, having regard to their respective ages, were much older than the deceased.On enlistment the deceased was graded as medically class 1 and his first posting was to an anti-tank unit. After a sea voyage to West Australia, he was transferred to a Light Anti-Aircraft (LAA) regiment. He served approximately 22 months in West Australia and his battery then travelled by rail to the Eastern States and embarked at Townsville on 23 March 1944 for Merauke, a small village on the south coast of (then) Dutch New Guinea, approximately 60 nautical miles (‘n.m.’) northwest of the boundary with Papau [sic].The role of the LAA units was the protection of air fields from enemy aircraft. Their weapons were the Bofors 40mm gun. In addition to his battery having guns at Merauke, the battery had posts at locations considerable distances away. One post was at Tanahmerah, about 140 nm due north by air but almost twice this distance by sea and then upriver and another was at Eilanden River about 240 nm northwest up the coast from Merauke. It is not known whether the Veteran served at these remote posts. His battery was withdrawn from Merauke after a period of about 7 months on 19 October 1944. There is no record of the battery having fired in anger during his tour of duty, or being fired upon. The Veteran then served in infantry training battalions in New South Wales until his discharge on 20 November 1945. During his period of service he was married on 12 December 1944. On his discharge medical examination, the veteran stated that he had suffered from malaria and dysentery during service as well as tonsillitis, infected tooth sockets and dermatitis. No abnormalities were detected in his central nervous system nor were any emotional type injuries recorded.”

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SPENDER, TAMBERLIN AND KENNY JJ

Full text does not contain this section.