Munt, C.C. v Repatriation Commission - [1986] FCA 319

Re: COLIN CRANSTON MUNT
And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
No. SA G42 of 1985
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION
Davies J.
Sheppard J.
Burchett J.

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Repatriation - appeal from decision of Repatriation Review Tribunal - failure to consider entitlement to disability pension at intermediate or special rate - consideration of physical capacity only and not of ability to earn - not open to Tribunal to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that insufficient grounds for granting claim

Repatriation Act 1920 (Cth) Schedules 1, 2, ss. 24AA, 35, 35AA, 43, 47, 101, 107VD, 107VG, 107VH, 107VK, 107VZZH

Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1984 (Cth) s. 59

Bowman v Repatriation Commission (1981) 34 ALR 556

Repatriation Commission v Bowman (1981) 38 ALR 650

Repatriation Commission v Moss (1982) 40 ALR 553

Cardiff Corporation v Hall (1911) 1 KB 1009

Repatriation Commission v Law (1981) 147 CLR 635

Repatriation Commission v O'Brien (1985) 155 CLR 422

Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 58 FLR 407

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Sprod v Repatriation Commission (unreported, 13 December

A.R.M. Constructions Pty Ltd v Deputy Federal

Commissioner of Taxation (1986) 86 ATC 4213

Proestos v Canberra Rex Hotel Pty Ltd (1985) 64 ACTR 110

HEARING

CANBERRA

#DATE 28:7:1986

ORDER

The appeal be allowed.

The order of the trial Judge be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that the decision of the Repatriation Review Tribunal be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for re-hearing and determination according to law.

The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the hearing below and of this appeal.

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

JUDGE1

I have had the opportunity of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by Sheppard J. I agree with them and wish only to add a few words of my own.

At the date of the decision of the Repatriation Review Tribunal, the appellant, Mr C.C. Munt, who was born on 24 April 1921, was 63 years of age. He had the following disabilities which had been accepted as service related: antral sinusitis, anxiety state, chronic bronchial asthma, hypertension, ventricular ectopic beats and angina pectoris. He had been Group Accounting Controller for Bridgestone Australia Pty Limited. He retired on 28 August 1982 at age 61 on medical grounds, the disabilities being substantially those which were accepted as service related. On 17 June 1982, Dr R.B. Hodgson, the Chief Medical Officer of Bridgestone Australia Pty Limited, had reported to the Mutual Life and Citizens Assurance Company Limited, the company which conducted the superannuation scheme for Bridgestone Australia Pty Limited, that Mr Munt was totally and continuously incapable of working and would remain permanently unfit for work at any time. That report accorded with an earlier report of 1 December 1981, given by Dr A. Tonkin, MD, FRACP, who had been involved in…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Munt, C.C. v Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Munt, C.C. v Repatriation Commission [1986] FCA 319
Case: [1986] FCA 319
Decision Date: 28 JULY 1986

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Munt, C.C. v Repatriation Commission presented a dispute concerning the entitlement of the appellant to a disability pension at a higher rate. The appellant sought to appeal the decision of the Repatriation Review Tribunal, which had concluded that he was not entitled to the pension at the intermediate or special rate. The Federal Court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed the appellant's entitlement based on his physical capacity and ability to earn income.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Repatriation Review Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legislative criteria in assessing the appellant's entitlement to a disability pension. Specifically, the court had to determine if the Tribunal had properly considered both the appellant's physical capacity and his ability to earn income, or if it had erred by only considering his physical capacity. The court also had to decide if the Tribunal had misapplied the standard of proof by requiring itself to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were insufficient grounds for granting the pension.

The court held that the Repatriation Review Tribunal had not correctly applied the statutory criteria in assessing the appellant's entitlement. The Tribunal had failed to consider the appellant's ability to earn income, focusing solely on his physical capacity. The court emphasised that the Tribunal's role was not to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were insufficient grounds for granting the pension but rather to determine whether the appellant met the criteria for the pension based on a balance of probabilities. The court concluded that the Tribunal had made an error of law, and therefore, the decision should be set aside and the matter remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for re-hearing and determination according to law.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed. The order of the trial judge was set aside, and in its place, the decision of the Repatriation Review Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for re-hearing and determination in accordance with the law. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the hearing below and of this appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be allowed.

The order of the trial Judge be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that the decision of the Repatriation Review Tribunal be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for re-hearing and determination according to law.

The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the hearing below and of this appeal.

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

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.