Legal Research
Cases
Noble v Repatriation Commission

Noble v Repatriation Commission

Case [1997] FCA 1159 3 November 1997

Administrative Law - Judicial Review

Veterans' Affairs Law - Standard of Proof

Veterans' Affairs Law - Reasonable Hypothesis

Veterans' Affairs Law - War-caused Disease

Administrative Law

Veterans' Affairs Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Veterans’ Affairs - reasonable hypothesis - interpretation of s 120 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 - s 120
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 - s 44

Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408 - appl.
East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 FCR 517 - cons.

STEWART WILLIAM NOBLE v REPATRIATION COMMISSION

VG 308 OF 1997

JUDGES:      BEAUMONT, BRANSON AND MERKEL JJ
PLACE:        SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)
DATE:          3 NOVEMBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA REGISTRY

VG 308 of 1997

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

STEWART WILLIAM NOBLE
APPELLANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT, BRANSON AND MERKEL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

3 NOVEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

ORDERS:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 308 of 1997

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

STEWART WILLIAM NOBLE
APPELLANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT, BRANSON AND MERKEL JJ

DATE:

3 NOVEMBER 1997

PLACE:

SYDNEY (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

INTRODUCTION

The appellant, Stewart William Noble, served in the Royal Australian Navy from 28 February 1941 to 24 October 1945. His service included a period of operational service within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”). In 1993 Mr Noble lodged a claim under Part II of the Act for a disability pension and for medical treatment for bronchial asthma, hypertension, osteoarthritis in both hips and one of his joints, lumbar spondylosis and migraine, all of which Mr Noble claimed were “war-caused” within the meaning of the Act.

By s 9 of the Act, a disease contracted by a veteran shall be taken to be war-caused if the disease arose out of, or was attributable to, any eligible war service rendered by the veteran or was contracted while the veteran was rendering eligible war service but did not arise out of that service.

The respondent, the Repatriation Commission (“the Commission”), refused the claims. Mr Noble applied to the Veterans’ Review Board for review of this decision. The Board decided that the osteoarthritis and the spondylosis were war-caused, but otherwise affirmed the Commission’s decision. Mr Noble applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for review of the Board’s decision that the asthma, the hypertension and the migraine were not war-caused. The Tribunal affirmed the Board’s decision. Mr Noble appealed to this Court from the Tribunal’s decision on a question of law under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. A Judge of this Court dismissed the appeal, noting that in the course of the argument on that appeal, the challenge in respect of the migraine claim was no longer pressed. Mr Noble now appeals to the Full Court.

THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME

The relevant legislative provision is s…

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 Noble v Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Noble v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 1159
Case: [1997] FCA 1159
Decision Date: 3 NOVEMBER 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Stewart William Noble, a former Royal Australian Navy serviceman, appealed against the Repatriation Commission’s decision to deny his claim for a disability pension and medical treatment under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. Noble asserted that his bronchial asthma, hypertension, osteoarthritis, lumbar spondylosis, and migraine were war-caused. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld the Commission’s decision, and Noble appealed to the Federal Court. The appeal was dismissed by a primary judge, and Noble appealed again to the Full Court.

The appeal hinged on the interpretation of section 120 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, which governs the standard of proof for determining whether a disease is war-caused. The Tribunal concluded that the material did not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting Noble's conditions with his war service. The primary judge found no error in the Tribunal's reasoning, noting that while the Tribunal's approach was more direct than necessary, it did not result in any prejudice to Noble.

The Full Court upheld the primary judge's decision, agreeing that the Tribunal's approach, though more direct than necessary, did not constitute an error of law. The court found that the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the material did not raise a reasonable hypothesis connecting Noble's conditions with his war service, particularly considering the significant time lapse between his service and the onset of his conditions. The court also rejected the argument that the Tribunal failed to consider all relevant evidence, noting that the issues relied upon by Noble were not significantly emphasized during the Tribunal’s hearing.

The Full Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the Tribunal’s decision with costs.

Orders