Hill v Repatriation Commission

Case [2004] FCA 832

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hill v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 832

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from administrative authorities – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Decision under Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – ‘incapacity for work’ – ‘work’ – Partial or total incapacity – Whether Tribunal recognised distinction between capacity to work and routine activities – Whether any residual capacity for work was an ‘odd lot’

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from administrative authorities – Administrative Appeals Tribunal – Obligation to give reasons for decision pursuant to s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – Consideration of content of obligation – Whether Tribunal’s reasons sufficiently expose Tribunal’s process of reasoning

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 43(2B)
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 37, 37AA, 120

Veterans’ Entitlements (Income Support Supplement – Permanent Incapacity for Work) Determination 1999

Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500 cited

Asioty v Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 533 cited

Australian National Railways Commission v Collector of Customs (SA) (1985) 69 ALR 367 cited
Australian Postal Corporation v Lucas (1991) 33 FCR 101 cited
Ball v William Hunt & Sons Ltd [1912] AC 496 cited

Bavcevic v The Commonwealth (1957) 98 CLR 296 cited
Cardiff Corporation v Hall [1911] 1 KB 1009 cited

Collector of Customs (Tas) v Flinders Island Community Association (1985) 7 FCR 207 cited
Comcare Australia v Lees (1997) 151 ALR 647 cited
Commonwealth v Borg (1991) 20 AAR 299 applied
Davis v Comcare Australia [2004] FCA 182 cited
Dornan v Riordan (1990) 95 ALR 451 cited

Fletcher v Douglas [1934] WCR 88 cited
Foster v Wharncliffe Woodmore Colliery Co Pty Ltd [1922] 2 KB 701 cited

Fry v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 776 cited

Hamiltons Ewell Vineyards Pty Ltd v Holmes (1985) 38 SASR 153 cited

Hawkins v Comcare (2001) 115 FCR 127 cited
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1 cited
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 75 ALJR 1105 cited
Preston v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] FCA 300 cited
Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424 cited

Ruiz v Canberra Rex Hotel Pty Ltd (1974) 5 ACTR 1 cited
Schulz v B.H.P. Co Ltd [1934] WCR 389 cited

Thompson v Armstrong & Royse Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 585 cited

Tok Carpentry and Partitioning Pty Ltd v Watts (1993) 113 FLR 368 cited

Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council (2001) 202 CLR 439 cited

Wemyss Coal Co Ltd v Walker (1929) 22 BWCC 366 cited
Wicks v Union Steamship Co of New Zealand (1933) 50 CLR 328 cited
Woden Valley Glass v Psaila (1993) 44 FCR 140 cited

COLIN DENNIS HILL v REPATRIATION COMMISSION

D 2 OF 2004

MANSFIELD J
1 JULY 2004
DARWIN

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

D 2 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

COLIN DENNIS HILL
APPLICANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

MANSFIELD J

DATE…

Continue reading Hill v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Hill v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 832
Case
[2004] FCA 832
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hill v Repatriation Commission, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) rejecting his claim for a service pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The applicant argued that the AAT failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which contravened s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth). The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the AAT's reasons were sufficient and whether the decision should be set aside and remitted for reconsideration.

The court had to consider whether the reasons provided by the AAT were adequate under the statutory requirement of s 43(2B) of the AAT Act, which mandates that the Tribunal must include its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. The court also examined the importance of providing reasons, which includes ensuring transparency, allowing for public confidence in tribunal decisions, and enabling the identification of any reviewable errors. The court referred to previous cases such as Comcare Australia v Lees and Preston v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services to understand the scope and adequacy of reasons required by the AAT.

The court found that the AAT's reasons were insufficient as they did not clearly expose the critical questions and did not explicitly indicate the reasons for preferring one expert witness over another. The court highlighted that while perfection is not required, the reasons must be expressed in clear language to be understood. Based on this finding, the court concluded that the AAT's failure to provide adequate reasons constituted a substantial error of law. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the AAT's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the AAT for reconsideration according to law.

The orders of the court were as follows: the appeal was allowed, the decision of the AAT dated 7 November 2003 was set aside, and the application for review of the AAT's decision rejecting the applicant's claim for a service pension was remitted to the AAT for reconsideration according to law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of 7 November 2003 be set aside.

3. The application for review of the decision of the respondent, rejecting the applicant’s claim for service pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration according to law.

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

MANSFIELD J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MANSFIELD J

At the hearing of the application, the third of those grounds was not pursued.CONSIDERATION(a) The adequacy of the reasons Section 43(2B) of the AAT Act provides:‘(2B) Where the Tribunal gives in writing the reasons for its decision, those reasons shall include its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based.’ Lander J in Davis v Comcare Australia [2004] FCA 182 at [82] noted that ‘[t]here is no doubt that the AAT [is] under an obligation to give adequate reasons’, in accordance with s 43(2B) of the AAT Act. Further, the Tribunal has an obligation to do so according to law: Commonwealth v Borg (1991) 20 AAR 299 at 308. In Dornan v Riordan (1990) 95 ALR 451, the Full Court (Sweeney, Davies and Burchett JJ) held that a substantial failure to state reasons for a decision, in the circumstance where a statement of reasons is a requirement of the exercise of the decision-making power, constitutes an error of law. This principle was followed in Comcare Australia v Lees (1997) 151 ALR 647 at 656 and in Preston v Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2004] FCA 300 at [21]. In Comcare Australia v Lees at 656, Finkelstein J commented on the importance of the obligation on a tribunal (in that case also the Tribunal) to give reasons for its decision:‘It ensures that the person whose interests may be adversely affected by a decision is told why the decision has been made: Re Poyser and Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467 at 478. It enables the public to have confidence that the tribunal has gone about its task appropriately and fairly: Commonwealth v Pharmacy Guild of Australia (1989) 91 ALR 65 at 88. It allows a party who is dissatisfied with a decision to determine whether there has been some reviewable error made by the tribunal: Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500 at 507. It imposes an intellectual discipline on the tribunal making it more likely that its decisions will not be arbitrary or capricious. Finally, the giving of reasons furthers judicial and quasi-judicial accountability: see Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 at 279.’ His Honour also noted that although perfection is not required, the reasons should be expressed in ‘clear language so that they are capable of being understood’: Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500. Finkelstein J in Comcare Australia v Lees at 660 and Lander J in Davis v Comcare Australia at [83], when deciding whether reasons of a tribunal were adequate, adopted the approach of Jenkinson J in Commonwealth v Borg at 308-309:‘The written reasons of the Tribunal for its decision afford a narrative account of the relevant events and the substance of some of the medical opinion evidence before the Tribunal. The narrative is so expressed as to expose the conflicting expert opinions on the questions which the Tribunal considered critical to the determination of the review. The reasons do not explicitly state those questions as those which the Tribunal considered to be critical, but the expression of the Tribunal’s conclusions, considered in the light of the proceeding narrative, enabled the questions to be identified with confidence. The only criticism which might be made of the document is that it does not explicitly indicate reasons for preferring one expert witness to another. Those reasons can be inferred from the whole content of the document.’