FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McKerlie v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 1127
Citation: McKerlie v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 1127 Appeal from: Trevor Desmond McKerlie and Repatriation Commission [2009] AATA 718 Parties: TREVOR DESMOND MCKERLIE v REPATRIATION COMMISSION File number: SAD 166 of 2009 Judge: BESANKO J Date of judgment: 19 October 2010 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal on question of law — where applicant a veteran who had lodged claim for disability pension under Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (‘the Act’) on basis of claimed post traumatic stress disorder — where diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder required experiencing of ‘severe stressor’ — where applicant claimed ‘severe stressor’ had occurred during war service — where Tribunal applying standard of proof contained in s 120(4) not reasonably satisfied incident said to amount to ‘severe stressor’ had occurred — whether Tribunal should have applied reverse criminal standard of proof to question of whether incident had occurred pursuant to s 120(1) in deciding whether applicant had post traumatic stress disorder — whether Tribunal obliged to consider, on material before it, if symptoms claimed by applicant existed and could amount to some disease other than post traumatic stress disorder when that case was not articulated by applicant.
HELD: Appeal allowed. Tribunal had applied correct standard of proof. Previous authority established that standard in s 120(4) applied to diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder and therefore to occurrence of severe stressor. In addition to determining case expressly articulated by applicant, Tribunal bound to consider and determine if applicant suffered from symptoms described and whether those symptoms constituted a disease for purpose of the Act, and then to follow steps set out in Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82. Failure to do so constituted an error of law.
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 9, 13, 120 and 120ACases cited: Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1879; (2001) 70 ALD 622, applied
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577, cited
Kuswardana v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 54 FLR 334, cited
NABE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (No 2) (2004) 144 FCR 1, cited
Peacock v Repatriation Commission (2007) 161 FCR 256, cited
Repatriation Commission v Budworth (2001) 116 FCR 200, followed
Repatriation Commission v Cooke (1998) 90 FCR 307, followed
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82, cited
Repatriation Commission v Warren (2008) 167 FCR 511, cited
Trevor Desmond McKerlie and Repatriation Commission [2009] AATA 718, reversedDate of hearing: 9 July 2010 Place: Adelaide Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 46 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr S Ower Solicitor for the Applicant: Voumard Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Maharaj QC with Mr A Schatz Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Continue reading McKerlie v Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- McKerlie v Repatriation Commission [2010] FCA 1127
- Case
- [2010] FCA 1127
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court centred on whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the law in assessing Mr. McKerlie's claim. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Tribunal was required to consider the applicant's symptoms and whether those symptoms constituted a disease within the meaning of the Veterans' Entitlements Act. Additionally, the court had to examine if the Tribunal properly followed the procedural steps outlined in the case of Deledio v Repatriation Commission.
In its judgment, the court held that the Tribunal had indeed committed an error of law. It was bound to consider the symptoms Mr. McKerlie complained of and assess whether they constituted a disease under the Act. Furthermore, the court found that the Tribunal failed to undertake the necessary process as identified in the Deledio case. Consequently, the error of law rendered the Tribunal's decision invalid, leading to the allowance of the appeal. The court reserved the decision on the appropriate order to be made, pending further submissions from the parties.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.