Munday and Repatriation Commission

Case [2004] AATA 1350


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1350

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2004/102

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re ROBERT MUNDAY

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member

Date17 December 2004

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is set aside and in substitution therefor the Tribunal decides that Mr Munday suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and irritable bowel syndrome which are both war caused.  The claim is remitted to the Respondent for assessment.

……………..............

Ms N Bell

Senior Member

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – whether applicant has post traumatic stress disorder – whether war caused – whether irritable bowel syndrome war caused

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 522

Lees v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 398

REASONS FOR DECISION

17 December 2004 Ms N Bell, Senior Member

1.      Mr Robert Munday served in the Australian Army from 7 February 1968 to 6 February 1971.  His eligible war service was from 23 December 1969 to 17 December 1970, including a period in Vietnam.

2.      He was working, as a National Serviceman, at the Communications Centre in Canberra when he was posted to Saigon as a communicator, billeted into a heavily secured converted five story hotel, and transported for each of his shifts by an open- backed army truck to the headquarters and adjacent canvass huts some five kilometres away.  He gave evidence of a number of incidents, characterised as stressors, that occurred in this context and of their effect on him.

3.      On his return from Vietnam Mr Munday went back to his job on the Railways for a short period and then did “odd jobs” for some time.  He then commenced work with the Fire Brigades and remained there for 31 years.  After he retired, as station officer, from the Fire Brigade he took on some contract work doing Occupational Health and Safety inspections of Telstra facilities in western New South Wales.  He last did this work about one year ago and now has a small business cutting firewood in the local area.

4.      Mr Munday claimed, in April 2002, for an increase in his rate of disability pension (currently paid at 30% of the general rate) in respect of irritable bowel syndrome and “war caused stress”.  He now asserts that the latter condition is post traumatic stress disorder (ptsd).

5.      The Repatriation Commission made a number of concessions.  It concedes that:

·     Mr Munday suffers from irritable bowel syndrome;

·     He suffered, during his eligible service, stressors of the kind required to meet the definition of ptsd in the Statement of Principles (SoP) concerning that disorder;

·     If it is found that Mr Munday suffers from ptsd and it, in turn, is war caused, then it follows that his irritable bowel syndrome is war caused.

6.      Consequently the only matters to be considered in this application are first, whether Mr Munday suffers from ptsd and, if so, the date of clinical onset of that…

Continue reading Munday and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Munday and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 1350
Case
[2004] AATA 1350
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Mr Munday, a veteran, and the Repatriation Commission, concerning a claim for recognition of certain medical conditions as war-caused. The Federal Court was tasked with reviewing a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding the veteran's claim. The AAT had previously dismissed the veteran's claim for recognition of post traumatic stress disorder and irritable bowel syndrome as war-caused. Mr Munday appealed the AAT’s decision to the Federal Court, arguing that the Tribunal erred in its findings and conclusions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the AAT made an error of law in its assessment of the veteran's claim and whether the Tribunal's findings on the medical conditions were unreasonable. The court needed to determine if the AAT appropriately considered the evidence and applied the relevant legal standards in assessing the claim. The court also had to examine whether the AAT's decision was supported by the evidence and whether it was open to the Tribunal to conclude that the conditions were war-caused.

The court found that the AAT had made an error in its assessment by not adequately considering the evidence presented by the veteran. The Federal Court held that the AAT failed to properly weigh the evidence and did not sufficiently address the link between the veteran's service and the onset of his conditions. The court concluded that the AAT's decision was unreasonable and not supported by the evidence. Therefore, the decision of the AAT was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AAT for reassessment. The court held that Mr Munday's claim should be reconsidered with due regard to the evidence and applicable legal principles.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside and in substitution therefor the Tribunal decides that Mr Munday suffers from post traumatic stress disorder and irritable bowel syndrome which are both war caused. The claim is remitted to the Respondent for assessment.

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.