Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1054
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2003/785
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re WAYNE LESLIE McDOWALL Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member McCabe Date12 October 2004
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review.
.................[Sgd]........................
Senior Member B J McCabe
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – pensions and benefits – whether reasonable hypothesis exists connecting veteran’s injuries with service – whether respondent can disprove a necessary fact beyond a reasonable doubt – decision set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879
Re Benjamin and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 738
REASONS FOR DECISION
12 October 2004 Senior Member McCabe Introduction
1. This is an application for review of a decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (the VRB) of 2 July 2003. The VRB modified the respondent’s decision of 5 December 2002 by substituting a diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. The decision was otherwise affirmed.
2. The matter was heard on 12 July 2004. The applicant was represented by Mr Honchin of counsel. The respondent was represented by Mr Stoner, a departmental advocate.
3. The documents compiled pursuant to s 37 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 were before the Tribunal. The applicant also submitted a statement dated 20 January 2004. The respondent submitted a report prepared by Dr Mulholland (a psychiatrist) dated 25 May 2004. The applicant and Dr Mulholland both gave oral evidence.
The Facts
4. Mr McDowall served in the Royal Australian Navy (the RAN) from 3 January 1962 to 2 January 1982. For the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act) he rendered operational service as follows:
• 19 January 1965 – 17 March 1965;
• 27 May 1965 – 26 June 1965;
• 11 August 1965 – 25 September 1965;
• 20 September 1965 – 3 October 1965
• 26 October 1965 – 24 December 1965;
• 4 January 1966 – 2 March 1966;• 14 September 1970 – 8 April 1971.
5. Mr McDowall says he experienced four incidents while on operational service that caused his psychiatric conditions. He described the incidents in his statement of 20 January 2004 (exhibit 2). They were:
(a)A collision between HMAS Duchess and the kumpit (a small boat) Mutiara on 22 January 1966 off the coast of Borneo (the collision incident);
(b)Observing what he believed were 200 incoming aircraft on his radar which later proved faulty (the radar incident);
(c)Hearing radio transmissions regarding a downed pilot in South Vietnam (the radio incident);
(d)Carrying out body searches of suspected insurgents/smugglers and Vietnamese forces (the body search incident).
The following excerpts are taken from the applicant’s statement.
a.) the collision incident
I recall that I was fast asleep when I was awoken by a horrible crashing and breaking noise. I could hear screaming and yelling. At the time the HMAS Duchess was operating in a…
Continue reading McDowall and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McDowall and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1054
- Case
- [2004] AATA 1054
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was the application of the standard of proof in cases where a veteran claims a disability pension. The court had to decide whether the Commission, as the respondent, could successfully disprove the existence of a reasonable hypothesis linking the veteran’s claimed injuries to his military service beyond a reasonable doubt, as per the principles established in Benjamin v Repatriation Commission and Re Benjamin and Repatriation Commission. Additionally, the court needed to examine whether the AAT had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in its review of the Commission’s decision.
The court found that the AAT had not properly applied the legal standard required to set aside the Commission's decision. It held that the Commission had not discharged the burden of disproving the existence of a reasonable hypothesis connecting Mr. McDowall's claimed injuries with his military service beyond a reasonable doubt. The court emphasised that the standard of proof required in such cases was a high one, aligning with the principles laid down in previous cases. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the AAT and remitted the matter for reconsideration in light of the correct legal principles.
The court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to the correct standard of proof in veterans' pension claims, ensuring that the veteran's entitlements are assessed fairly and correctly. The case highlights the necessity for tribunals and administrative bodies to meticulously apply statutory provisions and judicial precedents in their decision-making processes.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal sets aside 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.