Greentree and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This case concerned an appeal by Ms Greentree, the widow of a deceased veteran, against a decision of the Repatriation Commission regarding her claim for a war widow's pension. The veteran's death was attributed to end-stage congestive cardiac failure and right renal cell cancer with lung metastases. Ms Greentree contended that the veteran's adenocarcinoma of the kidney was caused by his inhalation of respirable asbestos fibres during his service, specifically while maintaining vehicles in an enclosed workshop environment. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the veteran's exposure to asbestos fibres met the criteria outlined in Statement of Principles (SOP) No. 9 of 2013, which links adenocarcinoma of the kidney to inhaling respirable asbestos fibres for at least 3,000 hours. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had previously found that the veteran would have only infrequently been exposed to circumstances satisfying the relevant factors of the SOP. The matter was heard by Deputy President Sosso P.

The legal issues before the court were whether the veteran's exposure to respirable asbestos fibres during his service materially contributed to his adenocarcinoma of the kidney, and consequently, whether Ms Greentree was entitled to a war widow's pension. This required the court to determine if the hypothesis that the veteran's condition was caused by asbestos exposure was reasonable and if the facts necessary to support this hypothesis had been disproved beyond reasonable doubt, or if facts inconsistent with the hypothesis had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. The court also had to consider the antecedent inquiries required before applying the methodology for determining claims under sections 120 and 120A of the relevant Act, as explained in *Collins v Repatriation Commission*. These inquiries include establishing the claimant's status, whether the veteran suffered an injury or disease or died, and the "kind of death" of the veteran, all to be determined on the balance of probabilities or to the reasonable satisfaction of the decision-maker.

The court's reasoning focused on the evidence presented, particularly the statement of Mr Ian Angove, a former colleague who served with the veteran in South Vietnam. Mr Angove’s evidence detailed the practice of using compressed air hoses to clean brake dust and dirt, which contained asbestos fibres, in enclosed workshop environments. This practice, along with sweeping floors, dispersed asbestos fibres into the air, which were then inhaled by mechanics. The court noted that the Tribunal had not adequately considered this evidence when concluding that the veteran would have only infrequently been exposed to the relevant conditions. The court applied the principles from *Collins* and *Hancock*, emphasizing that the Tribunal must make an independent conclusion on the "kind of death" based on the weight of medical evidence, not solely on the terminology used in the death certificate. The court found that the hypothesis raised by Ms Greentree was reasonable and that the facts necessary to support it had not been disproved beyond reasonable doubt, nor had facts inconsistent with it been proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the decision under review was set aside and substituted with a decision that Ms Greentree was entitled to the war widow's pension, with effect from 19 November 2015.