Manwaring and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, the war widow of a deceased veteran, against a decision of the Repatriation Commission regarding her entitlement to a war widow's pension. The central dispute was whether the veteran's death from prostate cancer was "war-caused" within the meaning of the relevant legislation. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) made its determination on the papers, without a formal hearing, in accordance with section 34J of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

The legal issues before the Tribunal were to determine whether the veteran's death from prostate cancer was war-caused, and consequently, whether the applicant was entitled to a war widow's pension. This required the Tribunal to consider the "kind of death" suffered by the veteran and to assess the causal connection, if any, between his World War II service and his subsequent death from prostate cancer, applying the principles established in cases such as *Collins v Repatriation Commission* and *Repatriation Commission v Codd*.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of evidence to establish a link between the veteran's service and his death. Despite the applicant's assertions about the veteran's diet, there was no direct evidence from the veteran himself regarding his dietary habits before, during, or after his service. The applicant, who married the veteran after his service, could not provide first-hand evidence of his early dietary patterns. While a dietitian provided an analysis of the veteran's post-war diet, the Tribunal found that the evidence, on the balance of probabilities, did not satisfy the requirements of Statement of Principles No. 53 of 2014, which governs claims related to malignant neoplasm of the prostate. Specifically, there was no evidence linking any increased intake of animal fats, as described in the applicant's dietary survey, to operational service.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the veteran's death by prostate cancer was not war-caused. The decision under review, which denied the war widow's pension on this basis, was affirmed.