Hartland and Repatriation Commission - [2005] AATA 1270

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1270
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No S2003/37

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re CHRISTOPHER JOHN HARTLAND

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr J G Short (Member)
Date20 December 2005
PlaceAdelaide

Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

..............................................
J G SHORT
(Member)

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – veterans' entitlements – operational service – claim that generalised anxiety disorder is war-caused – consideration of statements of principles – hearing scare charges from below decks – sighting object in water while on sentry duty – decision under review affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 5B, 6, 9, 13, 20, 120(1), 120(3), 120A and 196A, 196B
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 66 ALD 27
Hardman v Repatriation Commission (2004) 82 ALD 433
Elliott v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 377
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius[2002] FCA 750
White v Repatriation Commission (2004) 39 AAR 67
Delahunty v Repatriation Commission (2004) 38 AAR 511
Statement of Principles Instrument No. 1 of 2000
Statement of Principles Instrument No. 2 of 2000
REASONS FOR DECISION

20 December 2005   Mr J Short (Member)

1.      Mr Hartland was engaged in operational service in Vietnam on board HMAS Torrens from 16 February 1972 until 3 March 1972. He also performed eligible defence service from 7 December 1972 until 25 December 1974. On 26 August 1999 he lodged a claim for pension in respect of “obsessional and personality disorder”; “solar skin damage”; and “malignant neoplasm of testis”. The Repatriation Commission (the Commission) recorded diagnoses of non-melanotic malignant neoplasm of the skin (face), anxiety disorder, obsessive personality disorder and malignant neoplasm of the testis and paratesticular tissues. The same decision rejected Mr Hartland’s claim for acceptance of these conditions as war-caused.
2.      Mr Hartland applied to the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) seeking review of the Commission’s decision. On 29 October 2002 the VRB affirmed the decision under review. Mr Hartland has applied to this Tribunal to review the decision of the Commission as affirmed by the VRB. By notice dated 10 July 2003 Mr Hartland discontinued his application for review in respect of non-melanotic malignant neoplasm of the skin (face) and malignant neoplasm of the testis and paratesticular tissues. During his opening address, Mr Hartland’s counsel, Mr G Hemsley, discontinued the application for review on the basis of obsessive personality disorder. In these circumstances Mr Hartland’s claim is now confined to a claim for acceptance of generalised anxiety disorder as war-caused.
3.      It is common ground that Mr Hartland suffers from a generalised anxiety disorder and based on the evidence I so find.
issues before the tribunal
4.      The issue before me is whether generalised anxiety disorder is war-caused for the purposes of the

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 Hartland and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Hartland and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 1270
Case: [2005] AATA 1270
Decision Date: 20 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Repatriation Commission v Hartland involved a dispute over a claim for veterans' entitlements. The applicant, Mr. Hartland, sought compensation for a generalised anxiety disorder he claimed was caused by his operational service. The Repatriation Commission had previously denied his claim, and this decision was under review. The court was tasked with determining whether the Commission's decision was legally sound and if Mr. Hartland's disorder was indeed attributable to his service.

The central legal issues before the court included whether Mr. Hartland's generalised anxiety disorder was connected to his military service and if the Commission's decision was justified under the relevant legislative framework. The court had to consider various statements of principles and past case law to ascertain if the disorder met the criteria for a war-caused condition. Additionally, the court examined Mr. Hartland's experiences, such as sighting an object in the water during sentry duty and hearing scare charges, to evaluate the impact of these events on his mental health.

The court reviewed the evidence presented and the applicable statutory provisions, particularly sections 5B, 6, 9, 13, 20, 120(1), 120(3), 120A, and 196A, 196B of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. It also considered relevant case law and statements of principles that provided guidance on similar claims. After a thorough analysis, the court found that the Commission's decision was supported by the evidence and legal standards. It concluded that Mr. Hartland's disorder did not meet the criteria for a war-caused condition under the legislation.

The court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, denying Mr. Hartland's claim for veterans' entitlements. The judgment emphasised the need for clear evidence linking the claimed condition to specific operational experiences and the importance of adhering to legislative and judicial guidelines in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		CHRISTOPHER JOHN HARTLAND