Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 132
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/476
VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION ) Re KEVIN HAWKINS Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Dr EK Christie, Member Date14 February 2005
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The decision under review is affirmed. This means Mr Hawkins’ application for review is unsuccessful.
. ..........[Sgd] .........
EK Christie
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS AFFAIRS – reasonable hypothesis – cervical spondylosis and operational service – Statement of Principles and up-to-date medical and science – words and phrases: “carrying loads … on the head while upright….”
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 6D, 120
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 49 ALD 193
Repatriation Commission v Stares (1996) 41 ALD 212
Stoddart v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 334; (2003) 74 ALD 366
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 74 ALR 518; (1987) 12 ALD 389
Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 47 ALD 481
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408; (1992) 29 ALD 1
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261
Dixon v Repatriation Commission (1999) 29 AAR 235; (1999) 59 ALD 315
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564Metropolitan Gas Co v Federated Bas Employees’ Industrial Union (1925) 35 CLR 449
Bourne v Norwich Crematorium [1967] 1 WLR 691
Avondale Motors (Parts) Pty Ltd v Federal CommissionerofTaxation (1971) 45 ALJR 280
REASONS FOR DECISION
14 February 2005 Dr EK Christie, Member 1. This is an application by Kevin Hawkins to review a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) made on 28 February 2003 that decided Mr Hawkins’ cervical spondylosis was not war caused.
2. At the hearing, Mr Hawkins was represented by Mr N Dawson of Counsel. Mr B Williams, a Departmental Advocate represented the respondent.
3. At the hearing, the Tribunal had in evidence before it documents lodged pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the “T” documents, Exhibit R1) and the various documents tendered by the parties.
Facts
4. Mr Hawkins served in the Royal Australian Navy from 7 September 1950 to 6 September 1956. He rendered eligible war service in the form of operational service on HMAS Sydney from 31 August 1951 to 23 February 1952 in Korean waters and from 27 October 1953 to 2 June 1954 in Japanese and Korean waters, pursuant to section 6D(1) of the Act.
Issues to be Decided
5. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties agreed that the only issue for the Tribunal to decide was the interpretation of Factor 5(j) of the Statement of Principle No 50 of 2002, “Cervical Spondylosis”:
“(j)carrying loads of at least 15 kg on the head while upright to a cumulative total of 72 000 kg within any 10 year period, before the clinical onset of cervical spondylosis; or”
6. Furthermore, the parties agreed that, in relation to Factor 5(j):
(a)The SoP threshold for carrying 15kg was not in dispute in terms of the weight of the parachute…
Continue reading Hawkins and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hawkins and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 132
- Case
- [2005] AATA 132
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory language of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, particularly sections 6D and 120, which outline the criteria for determining the link between a veteran's condition and their service. The court also considered relevant case law, such as Repatriation Commission v Deledio, Repatriation Commission v Stares, and Stoddart v Repatriation Commission, which provided precedents for interpreting the statutory language and assessing causation. The court also looked at medical evidence and the Statement of Principles to understand the condition and its possible connections to service activities. The key issue was whether the veteran's experience of carrying loads on his head while upright during service could reasonably be considered a cause of his cervical spondylosis.
The court concluded that the veteran had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a reasonable hypothesis linking his cervical spondylosis to his service. The court found that while carrying loads on the head was a part of his duties, the evidence did not convincingly demonstrate that this activity caused his condition. The court emphasised that the veteran must prove a causal link on the balance of probabilities. In this case, the evidence was not compelling enough to meet this standard. Therefore, the court upheld the original decision, denying the veteran's claim for compensation.
The court's decision was that Mr Hawkins' application for review was unsuccessful. The original decision of the Repatriation Commission was affirmed, and the court did not grant the veteran's claim for compensation for his cervical spondylosis.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed. This means Mr Hawkins’ application for review is unsuccessful.
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.