Price and Repatriation Commission - [2002] AATA 819

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 819

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2001/1732

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION       )
           Re      JOAN PRICE
  Applicant
           And    REPATRIATION COMMISSION
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N Bell, Member

Date20 September 2002
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

[SGD] Ms N Bell
Member
CATCHWORDS
REPATRIATION COMMISSION - Compensation (Japanese Internment) Act 2001 – eligibility for compensation payment for partner of deceased Veteran – whether Veteran was interned within the meaning of the Act – essential character of the Veteran's time in Singapore after the surrender of Singapore – Veteran found not to have been interned by Japanese military forces during the designated war period – decision under review affirmed

Compensation (Japanese Internment) Act 2001 sections 3, 4,
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 section 119
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 section 15AA(1), 15AB(1)
Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001- Second Reading speech (HR 22 May 2001)

Mason v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1409
Repatriation Commission v Kohn (1989) 87 ALR 511
Re Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 60 ALD 401

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 September 2002 Ms N Bell, Member

This is an application by Mrs Joan Price ('the Applicant") for review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission ("Respondent") dated 20 September 2001 to refuse the Applicant's claim for payment under the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Act 2001 ("the Act"). The Applicant is the wife of the late George Raymond Price ("the Veteran").
At the hearing of the application before the Tribunal, the Applicant was represented by Mr Tony Latimore and the Respondent was represented by Mr Jim Marsh. For the Applicant, Ms Elizabeth Price (the Applicant's and the Veteran's daughter) and Mr John Williamson (the Applicant's and the Veteran's son-in-law), gave oral evidence to the Tribunal. For the Respondent Mr Brendan O'Keefe, Historian, gave oral evidence. The following documents were before the Tribunal:

Exhibit No    Document    Date
TD1 Documents produced pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. T1-T3
A1      Statutory Declaration of Joan Price         29 March 2002
A2      Statement of Heddy Price Undated
A3      Statutory Declaration of Gregory Price    3 March 2002
A4      Statutory Declaration of Mary Williamson          3 March 2002
A5      Statutory Declaration of Elizabeth Price 4 March 2002
A6      Statutory Declaration of Chris Price        3 March 2002
A7      Statutory Declaration of Stanley Price     4 March 2002
A8      Statutory Declaration of John Williamson          3 March 2002
A9      Army Instruction and Guide regarding duties to perform and precautions to be taken by prisoners of war.      October 1941
A10     Obituary of George Price    January 1995
A11     Terms of Singapore Surrender (extract)
A12     Letter from Herbert Grey to the Department of Veterans' Affairs       6 May 1955
A13     Veteran's Medical Case Sheet
R1      Report of Brendan O'Keefe on the World War 2 military service of the Veteran     27 April 2002
R2      Veteran's Medical Examination for Reclassification     August 1943
R3      Respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions     29 July 2002

Background

The following matters are not in dispute. The Applicant was married to the Veteran at…

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 Price and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Price and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 819
Case: [2002] AATA 819
Decision Date: 20 September 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Price, sought compensation under the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Act 2001 for being the partner of a deceased veteran who was allegedly interned by Japanese military forces during the war. The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the Court was whether the veteran's time in Singapore after the surrender of Singapore constituted internment within the meaning of the Act. This involved a detailed examination of the veteran's experiences and the applicable legal definitions of internment.

The Court meticulously reviewed the statutory provisions, particularly sections 3 and 4 of the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Act 2001, along with relevant sections of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The Court also considered the second reading speech of the Compensation (Japanese Internment) Bill 2001 and prior judicial interpretations such as Mason v Repatriation Commission and Re Repatriation Commission v Keeley. The Court found that the veteran's experiences did not meet the statutory criteria for internment, as his time in Singapore did not involve the necessary conditions of confinement or control by the Japanese military forces.

Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission that Price was not eligible for compensation under the Act. The Court's decision was grounded in a comprehensive analysis of the statutory language, legislative intent, and relevant case law. This judgment underscored the importance of strictly adhering to statutory definitions in determining eligibility for compensation under the Act.

Orders