Legal Research
Cases
Haughey and Repatriation Commission

Haughey and Repatriation Commission

Case [2005] AATA 189 8 March 2005

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

Disability Pension

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

Causation

Veterans' Affairs

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 189
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2000/1005

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re JACK HAUGHEY

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms M J Carstairs, Member
Date 8 March 2005
Place Brisbane
DecisionThe Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that the applicant’s PTSD is war and defence caused with effect from 31 October 1996. The Tribunal remits the matter to the respondent for the assessment of the rate of pension payable.

..................[Sgd].......................
M J Carstairs
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlements – disability pension – war-caused injury during eligible service – whether applicant suffers from post traumatic stress disorder or other psychiatric condition – whether applicant’s service was the cause of clinical worsening of post traumatic stress disorder – diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder accepted – post traumatic stress disorder worsened by severe stressors experienced during relevant service – decision under review set aside and substituted accordingly.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6, 7, 9, 70, 120, 120A, 196B
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Federal Broom Company Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Repatriation Commission v Hill [2002] FCAFC 192
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission (2003) 74 ALD 366
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 75 ALD 420
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Hatherall and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 77
REASONS FOR DECISION

8 March 2005 Ms M J Carstairs, Member

1.      This is an application by Jack Haughey for review of a decision made by the Veterans’ Review Board (the VRB) on 27 September 2000, rejecting the applicant’s claim for pension. The applicant originally claimed for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (amongst other medical conditions which are no longer in issue) on 31 January 1997. However both the Repatriation Commission (the respondent) and the VRB have treated his claim as relating to the psychiatric condition major depressive disorder. The applicant considers this is incorrect and that, properly understood, his claim for PTSD should be accepted as related to his service in the Australian Navy (the navy) because his PTSD was aggravated or worsened by navy service.
2.      At the hearing on 18 August and 16 November 2004 the applicant was represented by Mr A Harding of counsel instructed by Gilshenan and Luton solicitors. The respondent was represented by Mr J Stoner.
3. The Tribunal had before it the documents lodged under s37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) as well as exhibits marked A1-A16 for the applicant and R1-R3 for the respondent.
BACKGROUND
4.      The applicant is aged 59 years. He served for twenty years in the navy after enlisting in 1961 at the age of seventeen. The applicant was on board HMAS Melbourne when it was involved in the collision with HMAS Voyager in February 1964 (the Voyager collision). This part of his service is not covered by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).
5.      It is not disputed by…

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 Haughey and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Haughey and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 189
Case: [2005] AATA 189
Decision Date: 8 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case between Haughey and the Repatriation Commission, the dispute centred on the eligibility of the applicant for a disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The crux of the matter was whether the applicant had suffered from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or another psychiatric condition that could be attributed to his service in the military. Additionally, the court had to determine if the applicant’s military service was the cause of the clinical worsening of his PTSD. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the decision made by the Repatriation Commission.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of several sections of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, including sections 6, 7, 9, 70, 120, 120A, and 196B. The court needed to assess whether the applicant's psychiatric condition was caused by his war service and if this condition warranted a disability pension. The court also had to consider previous judicial decisions such as Repatriation Commission v Deledio, Federal Broom Company Pty Ltd v Semlitch, Repatriation Commission v Hill, Stoddart v Repatriation Commission, Woodward v Repatriation Commission, and Byrnes v Repatriation Commission to provide a coherent and legally sound judgment.

The Federal Court found that the diagnosis of PTSD was accepted, and it was determined that the applicant's service had indeed caused the clinical worsening of his PTSD. The court held that the Repatriation Commission had not appropriately considered the evidence presented regarding the applicant's psychiatric condition and its relation to his service. Consequently, the decision under review was set aside, and a new decision was substituted, allowing the applicant to be eligible for the disability pension. This ruling ensured that the applicant’s psychiatric condition, directly linked to his military service, was recognised and compensated appropriately.

Orders