Pamment, Scotia Ada v The Repatriation Commission - [1995] FCA 1043

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Appeal from decision of the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - decision whether death of veteran was war-caused - whether opinion reasonably open to Commission - substantial element of unforeseeability.

DEFENCE - Veterans' Entitlements - whether death of veteran was war-caused - s6(1)(n) Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) - proper construction of s6(1)(n) - whether open to Veterans' Appeals Division of Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") to conclude death not war-caused - whether lack of mobility caused death - standard of proof under s120 Veterans' Entitlements Act - "operational service" to have more beneficial "reasonable hypothesis" standard of proof - construction of "actual service" - whether "continuous full-time service" denotes whole of each period during which circumstances were such as to attract the specified opinion of the Repatriation Commission - whether on standard of "reasonable satisfaction" death was war-caused - connection needs to be established, conjecture is not sufficient - whether death attributable to any eligible war-service rendered by the veteran.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s6(1)(n)

Younger v Repatriation Commission (1992) 28 ALD 211

Repatriation Commission v Ahrenfeld (1991) 29 FCR 556

Dorothy May McKeown v Repatriation Commission, VG488 of 1993, 25 October 1995, Jenkinson J, unreported.

Repatriation Commission v Kohn (1989) 87 ALR 511

Re Searle and Repatriation Commission (1993) 29 ALD 580

Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990)
97 ALR 321

SCOTIA ADA PAMMENT v THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION
No NG79 of 1995

Tamberlin J
Sydney
22 December 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY )    No. NG79 of 1995
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN: SCOTIA ADA PAMMENT
Applicant

AND: THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

CORAM:        TAMBERLIN J
PLACE:        SYDNEY
DATED:        22 DECEMBER 1995

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. NG79 of 1995
GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: SCOTIA ADA PAMMENT
Applicant

AND: THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

CORAM:        TAMBERLIN J
PLACE:        SYDNEY
DATED:        22 DECEMBER 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the decision of the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The applicant is the widow of the veteran who died on 16 July 1990 in somewhat unusual circumstances. The Tribunal affirmed a decision that the death of the applicant's husband was not war-caused.

The Notice of Appeal raises three questions of law, which are as follows.

(a)The proper construction of s6(1)(n) of the Veterans' Entitlement Act, (1986) (as amended) ("the Act").

(b)Whether on the findings of fact made by the Tribunal it was open to it to conclude that the death of the veteran was not caused by his disability or lack of mobility.

(c)Whether the Tribunal erred in not holding that the cause of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Pamment, Scotia Ada v The Repatriation Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1995] FCA 1043
Decision Date: 22 DECEMBER 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Pamment, Scotia Ada v The Repatriation Commission involved the deceased veteran, Scotia Ada Pamment, and the Repatriation Commission. The dispute centred around whether the veteran's death was caused by her war service. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was asked to review a decision made by the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues in this case were whether the Commission's decision was legally sound and whether it was open to the Commission to hold that the veteran's death was war-caused. The court needed to determine if the Commission's findings were based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence and if the decision was within the scope of the statutory powers granted to the Commission under the relevant legislation.

The court examined the evidence and the reasoning behind the Commission's decision. It concluded that the Commission had acted within its statutory powers and that the decision was based on a reasonable interpretation of the evidence. The court found that there was a substantial element of unforeseeability in the connection between the veteran's service and her death, but this did not prevent the Commission from making a finding of war-causation. The court held that the opinion reached by the Commission was reasonably open to them and that the decision was therefore valid.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal was dismissed, and the Commission's original decision that the veteran's death was war-caused was upheld. The Federal Court confirmed the Commission's authority to make such determinations and emphasised the importance of considering the evidence as a whole when making findings about the causes of a veteran's death.

Orders