VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – veterans’ entitlements – disability pension – appeal from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether veteran’s lumbar spondylosis was war-caused – whether evidence satisfied Statement of Principles – whether reasonable hypothesis raised on evidence before Tribunal – whether Tribunal followed correct procedure under s 120 of Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) - whether Statement of Principles correctly interpreted by Tribunal – whether s 119 of Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) correctly applied – whether Tribunal imposed onus of proof on applicant - whether Tribunal erred in not providing written reasons for decision.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG518 OF 1998
BETWEEN:
JAMES WILLIAM MASON APPLICANT
AND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
WEINBERG J
DATE:
10 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND
This is an appeal under s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”) from a decision of the Veterans’ Appeal Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”) made on 25 August 1998.
By that decision the AAT affirmed the decision by the respondent, the Commission, that the applicant’s lumbar spondylosis was not “war-caused” within the meaning of s 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the VE Act”).
The questions of law raised on the notice of appeal are:
(a)Was the AAT wrong in law in determining that lumbar spondylosis was not war-caused pursuant to s 9 of the
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 Mason v Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Mason v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1409
Case
[2000] FCA 1409
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Mason v Repatriation Commission was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the applicant's claim for war-caused lumbar spondylosis and chronic conjunctivitis, with the Repatriation Commission initially denying the claim. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the Commission's decision regarding the lumbar spondylosis but found the chronic conjunctivitis to be war-caused. The applicant appealed to the Federal Court, seeking a review of the AAT's decision.
The central legal issue was whether the AAT erred in law by not providing adequate and proper reasons for its decision concerning the lumbar spondylosis. The applicant's counsel argued that the AAT should have furnished written reasons for its decision, as per section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Despite submissions that a request for written reasons was made, the AAT's records indicated that no such request was officially noted until January 1999, well after the statutory deadline.
The Federal Court examined the statutory provisions and the AAT's procedural history. The Court held that the AAT did not err in failing to provide written reasons since no valid request was made within the stipulated timeframe. Furthermore, the Court found that the AAT's oral reasons, which were delivered in accordance with section 43(2) of the Act, were sufficient. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the AAT's decision on the lumbar spondylosis. Additionally, the Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the appeal.
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
WEINBERG J
By contrast, Mr Paul Dumbrell, also an orthopaedic surgeon, had earlier expressed the opinion that the “history of heavy work during his time in service…would be sufficient to cause trauma to the spine…initiating lumbar spondylitic changes which have progressed during the period of his subsequent life”, so that “his claim for…lumbar spondylosis should therefore be accepted”.THE AAT’S DECISION On 21 August 1998, the AAT stated its intention to affirm the Commission’s decision that Mr Mason’s lumbar spondylosis was not war-caused. The AAT gave oral reasons for its decision, in accordance with s 43(2) of the AAT Act. On 25 August 1998 the AAT responded to the parties’ request for a decision under s 42C of the AAT Act. The decision relevantly provided:“…THE TRIBUNAL DECIDES that the decision of the Repatriation Commission of 17 December 1996 and the Veterans’ Review Board decision of 17 September 1997 be varied as follows:1.Chronic conjunctivitis of both eyes is a war-caused disability within the meaning of s 9 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 with effect from 13 February 1996.2.Pension is payable at sixty percent (60%) of the general rate from the date of effect.3.In all other respects the Board’s decision is affirmed.” Also on 25 August 1998 the AAT made the following decision in writing, as required by s 43(1) of the AAT Act:“For the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing IT IS DECIDED that the decision under review in so far as it relates to lumbar spondylosis is affirmed.” The AAT did not provide written reasons for its decision. No request was made to the AAT, pursuant to s 43(2A) of the AAT Act, that it provide written reasons for its decision. THE APPLICANT’S CASE1. Ground d – written reasons for decision The hearing of the application commenced before me on 31 July 2000. The first issue that arose related to the fourth ground of appeal, namely whether the AAT was wrong in law in failing to give adequate and proper reasons for its determination. At the commencement of the hearing on that date Mr De Marchi, on behalf of Mr Mason, submitted that attempts had been made to obtain from the AAT reasons for its decision of 25 August 1998 within 28 days, as provided by s 43(2A) of the AAT Act. That section relevantly provides:“(2A) Where the Tribunal does not give reasons in writing for its decision, a party to the proceeding may, within 28 days after which a copy of the decision is served on that party, request the Tribunal to furnish to that party a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision, and the Tribunal shall, within 28 days after receiving the request, furnish to that party such a statement.” Mr De Marchi submitted that, at the relevant time, he was under the impression that the Commission had sought written reasons from the AAT. Mr De Marchi contended that the Commission had, in any event, made a request for written reasons by telephone on 1 or 2 October 1998. However, the correspondence in relation to this matter shows that the AAT did not have any record of a request for reasons being made by either party until 21 January 1999.