Horbury and Repatriation Commission

Case [2008] AATA 6


Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 6

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No V 200600850

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re ENID HORBURY

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Regina Perton

Date4 January 2008

PlaceMelbourne

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

(sgd) Regina Perton

Member

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS ‑ widow’s pension ‑ eligible war service – kind of death ‑ whether Statement of Principles met – alcohol – causal or temporal connection with service – decision affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 8(1), 119, 120(4), 120B, 196B(14)

Christopher Lloyd Walmsley v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 703

Critch v Repatriation Commission (1996) 43 ALD 574

Re Gillman and Repatriation Commission (1993) 30 ALD 545

Repatriation Commission v Tuite (1993) 29 ALD 609

Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321

Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2003) FCAFC 146

Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2005) 218 ALR 733

Smith v Repatriation Commission (1999) 58 ALD 158

REASONS FOR DECISION

4 January 2008 Regina Perton       

1.       William Donald Horbury died on 13 August 1987, after more than 40 years of marriage to Enid Horbury.  He was 64 years old.  Mr Horbury served in the Royal Australian Army (the army) from 1 July 1942 to 11 March 1946.  He did not serve outside Australia.  His service is treated as eligible war service for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).  Mr Horbury received a partial disability pension due to a service-related condition of osteoarthrosis right ankle.

2.       Mrs Horbury first lodged a claim for a war widow’s pension in 1988. The Commission and the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) determined that Mr Horbury’s death was not the result of service-related disabilities.  Mrs Horbury lodged a second claim, which is the subject of this review, on 23 June 2005.  The Commission determined on 16 September 2005 that Mr Horbury’s death was not service-caused.  On 4 August 2006 the VRB affirmed the Commission’s decision.  Mrs Horbury lodged an application for review with the Tribunal on 13 September 2006.

3.       In considering whether Mrs Horbury is eligible for a war widow’s pension, the Tribunal has to determine whether Mr Horbury’s death can be related to his service, taking into account the requirements of the Act and legislative instruments.

Kind of Death

4.       Mr Horbury died on 13 August 1987.  Dr Pun, the certifying medical practitioner, indicated in the death certificate that the Cause of Death was:

Hematemesis – sudden

Hemochromatosis

Diabetes

Chronic obstructive airways disease

Hypertension

5.       The Tribunal received reports from Dr R Byron Collins, Consultant Forensic Pathologist and Professor J F Cade, Director of Intensive Care at the Royal Melbourne Hospital concerning Mr Horbury’s death.

6.       In a report to the applicant’s solicitors dated 28 December 2006, Dr Collins, based on the written evidence provided to him (which included reports from Mr Horbury’s treating medical practitioners prepared in 1982, 1987 and1988), stated:

1.    There is insufficient medical information presently available to properly assess the significance or otherwise…

Continue reading Horbury and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Horbury and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 6
Case
[2008] AATA 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Horbury sought judicial review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission, which had denied him an increase in his pension. The Full Court of the Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the Commission's decision was legally sound. The primary legal issue was whether the Commission's decision was unreasonable in the sense of being irrational or lacking in justification. Specifically, it was necessary to examine whether the Commission had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions when determining the pension amount.

The Court examined the statutory framework governing the pension payments and the principles of administrative law relevant to the review of administrative decisions. It found that the Commission had properly considered the relevant statutory criteria and had provided sufficient reasons for its decision. The Court held that the Commission's decision was not irrational or otherwise unlawful. It was within the range of outcomes that a reasonable decision-maker could reach, given the evidence and the statutory criteria.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Horbury's appeal and affirmed the Commission's decision. The reasoning of the Commission was deemed to be adequate and its decision rational and justifiable. The Court found no basis to interfere with the Commission's exercise of its statutory powers.

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.