Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2007] AATA 1546
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2006/543
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re LAURIE JAMES HOLT Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal
Mr RG Kenny, Member
Date 13 July 2007
Place Brisbane
Decision
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...........[Sgd]...........
RG Kenny
Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – disability pension – operational service with Royal Australian Navy – application of Statements of Principles – appropriate diagnosis of psychiatric conditions – generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence diagnosed – severe psychosocial stressor – reasonable hypothesis of relevant relationship to service raised – no clinical onset of anxiety disorder within two years – anxiety disorder not war-caused – no increase in alcohol consumption after alleged stressor – alcohol dependence not war-caused – decision affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 6C, 7, 9, 14, 69, 120, 120A
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2001) 70 ALD 622
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 363
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Re Robertson and Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission and Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
Lees v Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
Youngnickel v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1691
Hardman v Repatriation Commission (2004) 82 ALD 423
Woodward v Repatriation Commission (2003) 75 ALD 420
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart (2003) 134 FCR 392REASONS FOR DECISION
13 July 2007
Mr RG Kenny, Member
Background
1. Laurie Holt (the applicant) served in the Royal Australian Navy (the RAN) from 8 February 1969 until 7 February 1989. On 12 May 2004, he lodged with the Repatriation Commission (the respondent), in accordance with s 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act), a claim for a disability pension for “mental/anxiety stress complaints” which he contended were related to his RAN service. On 28 May 2004, the respondent accepted that Mr Holt suffered from generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol dependence but determined that these conditions were not related to his service. On 26 April 2006, the Veterans’ Review Board (the Board) affirmed the decision and Mr Holt seeks review of the Board’s decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).
Service and Standard of Proof
2. During his RAN service, Mr Holt rendered eligible war service in the form of operational service, as provided for in s 7 and s 6C, respectively, of the Act as follows:
from 16 November 1969 until 29 November 1969;
from 13 May 1971 until 1 June 1971;
from 20 September 1971 until 16 October 1971;
from 26 October 1971 until 18 November 1971;
from 24 November 1971 until 17 December 1971;
from 14 February 1972 until 9 March 1972; andfrom 1 November 1972 until 30 November 1972.
The first of those voyages was on HMAS Duchess and the others were on HMAS Sydney. Each of them involved a return voyage from…
Continue reading Holt and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Holt and Repatriation Commission [2007] AATA 1546
- Case
- [2007] AATA 1546
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Tribunal examined the statutory criteria under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) and relevant case law to assess the applicant's claims. The primary issue revolved around the temporal and causal connections between the applicant's psychiatric conditions and his military service. For the anxiety disorder, the lack of a clinical onset within two years post-service was a critical factor. The Tribunal also considered the absence of an increase in alcohol consumption after the alleged stressor, which was pivotal for establishing a causal link between the alcohol dependence and the service. The reasoning hinged on the application of Statements of Principles concerning war-caused psychiatric conditions and the requirement to establish a reasonable hypothesis of a relevant relationship to service.
The Tribunal upheld the Repatriation Commission's decision, affirming that the applicant's claims did not meet the statutory requirements. The Tribunal found that the applicant's psychiatric conditions were not war-caused, as there was insufficient evidence to establish a reasonable hypothesis of a relevant relationship to his service. The absence of a clinical onset of anxiety disorder within two years of service and the lack of a direct causal link between the stressor and the increase in alcohol consumption were decisive factors. The Tribunal concluded that the Repatriation Commission's findings were supported by the evidence and the applicable legal principles.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, dismissing the applicant's appeal for a disability pension. The Tribunal found that the applicant's conditions were not related to his military service within the legal framework provided by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth).
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
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.