Moore and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for review brought by the Applicant against the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Respondent). The dispute concerned the Applicant's entitlement to compensation for a psychiatric condition and a jaw condition, stemming from an assault he suffered in 2002 while serving in the RAAF. The Applicant had previously lodged claims for these conditions in 2003, which were rejected in 2005. Following a review, these decisions were affirmed by a delegate in 2005, and the Applicant applied to the AAT for review. In 2008, the Applicant and the Respondent filed consent terms, which were reflected in an AAT decision affirming the 2005 reviewable decision. Subsequently, after receiving a reparation payment from the Defence Abuse Response Taskforce (DART) in 2013, the Applicant lodged new claims for compensation for PTSD and a jaw condition. The Respondent initially accepted these claims but later revoked that acceptance in reviewable decisions made in May and June 2016. The Applicant sought review of these 2016 decisions.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Applicant's current applications constituted an impermissible re-litigation of issues already determined by the 2008 consent decision, and whether there had been a relevant change in circumstances or fresh evidence to warrant reconsideration of the claims. The Applicant argued that the Respondent needed to produce new material to support its assertion that he was no longer entitled to compensation, particularly given the Respondent's prior acceptance of liability for the claims before revoking it. The Applicant contended that the Tribunal could only fairly decide the matter upon a hearing, not by summary determination, and relied on principles from *Quinn and Australian Postal Corporation*.

The Tribunal found that while the Applicant's argument that a different decision was under review was factually correct, this did not, in itself, permit re-litigation. The Tribunal was satisfied that the reviewable decisions concerned substantively the same conditions with the same point of origin, and that the central issue in each decision was the causal link between the Applicant's conditions and his service. The Tribunal noted that the *Quinn* decision, when read in full, did not support the Applicant's contention that the Respondent needed to produce additional evidence beyond pointing to the previous consent decision. The Tribunal also considered the Respondent's submission that the original decision to accept liability was made in error. Furthermore, the Tribunal determined that the Respondent's subsequent decisions to revoke acceptance of liability were within its authority under section 62 of the Act, and that a previous decision to accept liability, having been superseded by a later decision, was not determinative of the Respondent's rights or liabilities. The Tribunal concluded that the acceptance and subsequent rejection of the Applicant's claims did not constitute a relevant change in circumstances.

Accordingly, the Tribunal accepted the Respondent's request and dismissed the Applications for Review.