Re: ELIZABETH CATHERINE HENRY
And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
No. G 671 of 1991
FED No. 1047
Number of pages - 12
Administrative Law
(1992) 29 ALD 289
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Einfeld J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Administrative Law - appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal which affirmed decision of Repatriation Commission that death of applicant's husband was not war-caused - whether there was no evidence to support Tribunal's finding - whether Tribunal asked itself the wrong question - inadequate fact-finding to determine basis for Tribunal's conclusion
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss.5, 6, 120
Treloar v. Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316
Repatriation Commission v. Law (1980) 47 FLR 57 at 68; on appeal (1981) 147 CLR 635
Repatriation Commission v. Bendy (1989) 10 AAR 326
Repatriation Commission v. Hughes (1990) 13 AAR 34; (1991) 23 ALD 270
HEARING
SYDNEY, 14 August 1992
#DATE 21:12:1992
Counsel and solicitor : J Hamilton QC and A Hill
for the applicant instructed by Kenneth Harrison
Counsel and solicitor : R Henderson instructed by
for the respondent Australian Government Solicitor
ORDER
1. The decision of the Tribunal is set aside.
2. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the reasons for judgment.
3. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
EINFELD J. The applicant Elizabeth Catherine Henry appeals from alleged errors of law in a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given ex tempore on 4 October 1991 and confirmed by brief considered reasons on 7 November 1991. Mrs Henry is the widow of Paul Raymond Henry, a former veteran who had performed operational service as a member of the armed forces of Australia, as defined in sections 5 and 6 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The late Mr Henry died from carcinoma of the colon on 31 January 1988. The Tribunal affirmed a decision of the respondent Commission that Mr Henry's death was not war-caused and that the applicant was not entitled to a war widow's pension under the Act.
The matter arises for decision under the much litigated section 120 of the Act which relevantly provides:
(1) Where a claim under Part II for a pension in respect of the incapacity from injury or disease of a veteran, or of the death of a veteran, relates to the operational service rendered by the veteran, the Commission shall determine that the injury was a war-caused injury, that the disease was a war-caused disease or that the death of the veteran was war-caused, as the case may be, unless it is satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that there is no sufficient ground for making that determination. ...
(3) In applying subsection (1) or (2) in respect…
Continue reading Henry, E.C Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Henry, E.C Repatriation Commission [1992] FCA 1047 ((1992) 29 ALD 289)
- Case
- [1992] FCA 1047
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues before the court were whether there was sufficient evidence to support the AAT's finding that the death was not war-caused, and if the AAT had asked itself the right question when making its decision. Furthermore, the court considered whether there had been adequate fact-finding by the AAT to ascertain the basis for its conclusion. The applicant argued that the AAT had failed to properly evaluate the evidence and that its decision was flawed due to a misapprehension of the applicable legal standards.
The court found that the AAT had not asked itself the correct question when determining the war-related nature of the death. The Tribunal had focused on whether the death was caused by the war, rather than whether it was contributed to by the service. Additionally, the court held that the AAT's fact-finding was inadequate because it did not sufficiently consider all the evidence presented. The court set aside the decision of the AAT and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration, providing detailed reasons for its judgment. The court also ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Tribunal is set aside.
2. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the reasons for judgment.
3. The respondent is to pay the applicant's costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
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.