Giger and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by the Applicant, seeking a war widow's pension following the death of her husband, Mr Jack Giger. Mr Giger, who served in the Royal Australian Navy during the Korean War and other operational periods, was diagnosed with schizophrenia towards the end of his service and died by suicide in 1966. The Applicant's initial claim for a war widow's pension in 2004 was rejected, a decision affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board and subsequently by the Tribunal in 2007. A further claim in 2015 was also refused and affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board, leading to the present application for review. The Respondent sought to have the application dismissed, arguing it constituted an attempt to re-litigate issues already determined.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the current application should be permitted to proceed, effectively allowing for the re-litigation of issues previously decided by the Tribunal in 2007. This question was to be determined by reference to the principles established in *Matusko and Australian Postal Corporation*, which generally disallows re-litigation of decided issues unless there is a reason to do so, such as a change in circumstances or fresh evidence. The Applicant contended that a recent report by Dr Palazzo constituted fresh evidence and that the Federal Court decision in *Border* represented a change in circumstances warranting a reconsideration of the case.

The Tribunal considered the Applicant's arguments regarding fresh evidence and a change in circumstances. It found that the evidence presented by Dr Palazzo did not constitute "fresh" evidence but rather an attempt to augment or redefine evidence already considered in the 2007 proceedings. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant had not demonstrated that the evidence was overlooked in the previous hearing and that the opportunity to appeal the 2007 decision on these grounds had been forgone. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the *Border* decision, which concerned a "category 1A stressor," did not represent a change in circumstances relevant to the Applicant's case, which centred on a "category 1B stressor." The Tribunal concluded that there was no convincing factual or legal basis for re-litigating the issues that had been fully contested and adjudicated in the earlier proceedings.

Accordingly, the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's request and dismissed the Applicant's application for review. The Tribunal found no fresh evidence or change in circumstances that would justify re-litigating the matter, and it was not satisfied that justice to the parties required a departure from the general rule against re-litigation, particularly given the Applicant's prior opportunity to appeal the 2007 decision.