Meehan v Repatriation Commission

[2002] FCA 996

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Meehan v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 996

VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – whether generalised anxiety disorder was war-caused – function of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in determining reasonableness of hypothesis assessed by reference to Statement of Principles

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 120(1), 120(2), 120(3), 120(6), 120A

Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 applied
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564 applied
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 applied
Bull v Repatriation Commission (2002) 34 AAR 326 referred to
Arnott v Repatriation Commission (2001) 106 FCR 83 referred to
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517 cited

JAMES SYDNEY MEEHAN v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
N 457 OF 2002

GYLES J
SYDNEY
30 JULY 2002

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 457 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	JAMES SYDNEY MEEHAN APPLICANT
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 JULY 2002
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The matter is to be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be considered according to law.

2.The respondent is to pay the costs of the applicant of this application.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 457 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	JAMES SYDNEY MEEHAN APPLICANT
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	GYLES J
DATE:	30 JULY 2002
PLACE:	SYDNEY

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) on a question of law under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). The Tribunal affirmed a decision to decline a claim by James Sydney Meehan (“the applicant”) for a pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). The matter had been returned to the Tribunal following litigation in this Court which culminated in orders as follows (so far as is relevant):

   “2.     The matter being the question whether the appellant’s generalised anxiety disorder is war caused be remitted to the Veterans Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for further hearing (with or without additional evidence, as the Tribunal may direct) and determination according to law.

   2A.     The Tribunal is directed to determine whether the disease of general anxiety disorder which has been found to exist by the Tribunal, is war- caused.”

2. The issue arises pursuant to s 13(1) as elucidated by s 9(1) of the Act. The question of law which has been identified is whether the Tribunal failed to apply s 120(3) of the Act as it has been construed in the authorities. As I have been able to form a view as to the correct answer to this question, having considered the comprehensive arguments of counsel on either side, the long history of this matter makes it appropriate that I deliver judgment today, even if my reasons may be briefer than would otherwise have been the case and may contain imperfections of expression.