Lloyd and Repatriation Commission - [2001] AATA 814

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 814

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2000/1795

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re MAXWELL LLOYD
Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen; Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

Date13 September 2001
PlaceSydney

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )         No   N2000/1795
  )
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION                )

Re: MAXWELL ALLEN JAMES
LLOYD
Applicant

And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen;
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

Date 13 September 2001

Place Sydney

DecisionFOR the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the decision under review is SET ASIDE and the Tribunal substitutes in lieu thereof its decision, namely THAT:
1.The Applicant, MAXWELL ALLEN JAMES LLOYD, suffers from the war-caused disease of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and is entitled to pension for this said disease as and from 1 August 1999; and

2.This matter is remitted to the Respondent so that it might assess the rate of pension to be paid for all war-caused injuries and diseases suffered by the Applicant.

(Sgd) M.D. ALLEN
.............................
Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS: Claim for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Veteran observed evidence of Japanese stragglers having resorted to cannibalism. Whether a severe stressor in terms of Statement of Principle.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 – s120(1), (3) and (6); s120A

Repatriation Commission v Deledio 83 FCR 82
Vickery v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 971
Meehan v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 597

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M D Allen
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally. After service upon the Respondent of a copy of the decision that was in fact made, the Respondent pursuant to Sub-section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requested the Tribunal to furnish to the Respondent a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service. Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reasons for the said decision.

The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Respondent and to the Applicant as it is the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision herein of:
Senior Member M D Allen

Signed: Kwai-Ling Wong
..................................................................................……………………………….
Associate

Date of Hearing  13 September 2001
Date of Decision  13 September 2001
Counsel for Applicant                 Mr Craig Colborne
Advocate for Respondent          Mr Stephen Moddar, Department of Veterans'
  Affairs
DRAFT DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Matter No N2000/1795
By MR M.D. ALLEN, Senior Member and
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member
LLOYD and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
SYDNEY, THURSDAY, 13 SEPTEMBER 2001
MR ALLEN: In this matter pursuant to an application lodged with…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Lloyd and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Lloyd and Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 814
Case: [2001] AATA 814
Decision Date: 13 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case, Lloyd and the Repatriation Commission, the dispute involved the veteran's claim for compensation for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) stemming from his experiences during World War II, specifically witnessing Japanese stragglers resorting to cannibalism. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The veteran argued that this experience constituted a severe stressor under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, warranting compensation for his psychological condition.

The court was required to determine whether the veteran's observation of cannibalism could be classified as a severe stressor in accordance with the Statement of Principle, and thus qualified for compensation under the Act. This involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Act, including sections 120(1), (3), and (6), and assessing the precedents set by cases such as Repatriation Commission v Deledio and Vickery v Repatriation Commission. The court needed to consider if the veteran's experience met the statutory criteria for a severe stressor and if it had a direct link to his PTSD.

The court examined the veteran's evidence and the statutory requirements closely. It considered the impact of witnessing such extreme behaviour and whether this constituted a severe stressor. The court referenced previous cases, particularly those dealing with the interpretation of severe stressors under the Act. Ultimately, the court found that the veteran's experience of witnessing cannibalism did not meet the statutory definition of a severe stressor, and thus his claim for compensation was not substantiated. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory language and the precedents set by prior cases, affirming that the veteran's observation did not qualify as a severe stressor under the Act. The final orders dismissed the veteran's claim for compensation.

Orders