Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v SRGGGG

The Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Commission) appealed against a decision of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which remitted the respondent's claim to the Commission, with the direction that the respondent was entitled to compensation for psychiatric illness, more particularly described as severe chronic depression, body dysmorphophobia and obsessive personality disorder, from the date of his discharge from the military. The Tribunal had set aside a decision of the Commission which had rejected the respondent's claim for compensation for psychiatric illness from the date of his discharge from the military. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

The legal issues which arose in this case were whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Limited Guardianship Order made by the Guardianship Tribunal, whether the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations, and whether the Tribunal provided adequate reasons for its decision.

The Commission argued that the Tribunal failed to take into account relevant considerations, including the advantage enjoyed by Doctor Nielssen and Prof. Tennant over Dr Canaris and the Tribunal itself by virtue of their having interviewed, observed and assessed the respondent, and the evidence that the respondent did not suffer from depression during the period 1993 to May 1999. However, the court found that as to the supposed advantages (in the circumstances) of the examining doctors, this itself was a question of fact. Implicitly the Tribunal resolved it against the Commission. As to the alleged failure to take into account the asserted lacuna in observed and diagnosed depression in the 10-year period, the discussion above in relation to the supposed failure to give reasons also indicates that, in the court's opinion, this matter was adequately taken into account by the Tribunal.

The Commission also contended that the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the Limited Guardianship Order made by the Guardianship Tribunal, which appointed the respondent's father to be his guardian to perform three functions: accommodation, health care and advocacy. The Commission submitted that the Order did not authorise the respondent’s father to give instructions or maintain proceedings on his behalf. However, the court found that the Tribunal was entirely satisfied that the respondent’s father had the proper legal authority under the law in force in the State of New South Wales to represent the respondent and maintain the current proceedings.

The court found that the appeal be dismissed, with costs.