Henry, E.C Repatriation Commission

Case [1992] FCA 1047


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

East v. Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517 at 532-3

Webb v. Repatriation Commission (1988) 19 FCR 139 at 141-2

Treloar v. Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316

Repatriation Commission v. Whetton (1991) 31 FCR 513

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.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
Henry, E.C Repatriation Commission [1992] FCA 1047 ((1992) 29 ALD 289)
Case
[1992] FCA 1047
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal by the applicant, Mrs. E.C. Henry, against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which upheld a determination by the Repatriation Commission. The dispute centred around the denial of a war-related death benefit for the applicant's husband, who was presumed to have died from causes not related to his service in the armed forces. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

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.