Legal Research
Cases
Ralph v Repatriation Commission

Ralph v Repatriation Commission

Case [2016] FCAFC 89 22 June 2016

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCAFC 89

Appeal from: Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCA 165

File number: VID 148 of 2015

Judges: COLLIER, LOGAN AND MCKERRACHER JJ

Date of judgment: 22 June 2016

Catchwords:
DEFENCE AND WAR – Veterans’ entitlements – application for special rate of pension under Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – whether application lodged prior to applicant turning 65 – delivery and receipt – by s 5T(2) lodgment taken to occur on receipt – application, if any, of s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and s 160 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether application lodged at approved place under s 5T(2) – no legal error – appeal dismissed

DEFENCE AND WAR – Veterans’ entitlements – application for special rate of pension under s 24(2A) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – whether applicant was engaged in “remunerative work” – whether primary judge misconstrued “working … for a continuous period of at least 10 years” – Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 24(2A)(d), 24(2A)(g) – no legal error – appeal dismissed

COSTS – whether to exercise discretion that costs follow the event – whether issue was of wider public interest – anomaly in drafting of s 24(2A)(g) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – anomaly warrants departure from usual order – no order as to costs

EVIDENCE – Proof - facilitating proof - matters relating to post and communications – inapplicability of s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and s 160 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – requirement for receipt of claims and applications for disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – sufficiency of departmental date stamp as proof of receipt for administrative purposes.

Legislation:
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 2(2), 28A, 29

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 39(1)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44, 33(1)(c), 43

Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002 (Cth)

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 160

Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) ss 75, 76

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 14, 15, 24(2A), 5T, 19, 180(i)(d)

Cases cited:
Cabal v United Mexican States (No 6) (2000) 174 ALR 747; (2000) 113 A Crim 227

Capper v Thorpe (1998) 194 CLR 342

Collett v Repatriation Commission (2009) 178 FCR 39

Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1032

Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87

Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73

Grant v Repatriation Commission (1999) 57 ALD 1; [1999] FCA 1629

Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656

Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 881

Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2013] AATA 948

Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCA 165

Repatriation Commission v Buckingham [1996] FCA

Ruddock v Vadarlis(No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229

Shelton v Repatriation Commission (1999) 85 FCR 587

Thomson v…

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 Ralph v Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCAFC 89
Case: [2016] FCAFC 89
Decision Date: 22 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Ralph sought to appeal a decision by the Repatriation Commission regarding his eligibility for a special rate of pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The core issues were whether the pension application was lodged before Ralph turned 65 years old and whether he had been engaged in remunerative work for a continuous period of at least ten years. The court had to determine if the application was effectively lodged at an approved place and if the statutory requirements concerning the timing and conditions of the application were met.

The court examined the statutory provisions, including sections 5T(2) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, and s 160 of the Evidence Act 1995, to ascertain if the application was properly received and whether the statutory conditions were satisfied. It was held that there was no legal error in the Commission's findings, and the application was deemed to have been lodged at an approved place when it was received. Additionally, the court found no misinterpretation of the statutory term "working... for a continuous period of at least 10 years" and upheld the Commission's decision regarding Ralph's employment status.

The court dismissed the appeal and concluded that, while the drafting anomaly in s 24(2A)(g) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act was noted, it did not warrant a departure from the usual order on costs. Consequently, no order was made as to the costs of the appeal. The final order was that the appeal be dismissed, with specific reference to Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for the entry of orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCAFC 89

Most Recent Citation

Whitehouse v Repatriation Commission [2017] FCA 1085

Cases citing this decision · 8 of 8 shown

General Manager of the Fair Work Commission v Smyth
[2024] FCA 304 Para 18

…parliament the correction of any perceived anomaly: Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73, at 77, and Ralph v Repatriation Commission (2016) 248 FCR 438, at [56].…
Child Support Registrar v CMU23
[2024] FCA 109 Para 8

…riation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73 ( Gauntlett ), at 77, in a passage later cited with approval by the Full Court in Ralph v Repatriation Commission (2016) 248 FCR 438, at [56]: … [t]his is not the first time in which the respondent Commission has implied in argument that provisions of this sort could not possibly h…
Turner and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)
[2021] AATA 3497

…baka v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs (1997) 47 ALD 555 Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCAFC 89 Re Bennett and Repatriation Commission (1994) 36 ALD 387 Re VCA and Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2008] AATA 580 Repatriation Commission v Gordon (1990) 26 FCR 569 Gusdote Pty Ltd…
I-Med Radiology Network Limited v The Director of Professional Services Review
[2020] FCA 1645 Para 11

…In Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73, at 77, in a passage cited with approval by the Full Court in Ralph v Repatriation Commission (2016) 248 FCR 438, at [56], Pincus J, when a judge of this Court, stated: … [T]his is not the first time in which the respondent Commission has implied in argument tha…
Trustee for the Michael Hayes Family Trust v Commissioner of Taxation
[2019] FCA 426 Para 10

…In Ralph v Repatriation Commission (2016) 248 FCR 438, at 452 [56], the Full Court expressly approved the following observations made by Pincus J in Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73 at 77: [T]his is not the first time in which the respondent Commission has implied in argument that provisions of th…
Minus v Selth (No 2)
[2017] FCA 1233 Para 1

…: Capper v Thorpe (1998) 194 CLR 342 at 352, [23]; Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 at 97; Ralph v Repatriation Commission (2016) 248 FCR 438 at [19]. It is just nothing to the point, in relation to whether the notice of estimate was duly “given”, that none of the applicants was able to access the…
Whitehouse v Repatriation Commission
[2017] FCA 1085 Para 16

…riod of at least 10 years that began before the veteran turned 65: cf Grant at 4 [9]; Ralph v Repatriation Commission (2016) 69 AAR 462 at 472; [2016] FCAFC 89 at [33] (Collier, Logan and McKerracher JJ).…
Clayton and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)
[2017] AATA 1546 Para 16

…last undertook remunerative or paid work on 3 August 2014, his last day of work for Fassina Liquor merchants. [1] Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCAFC 89 , at [33].…

View all 8 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 20 of 20 shown

Ralph v Repatriation Commission
[2015] FCA 165 Para 2

…Cth) (the AAT Act) in respect of a decision adverse to him in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal): see Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCA 165. He now appeals against the Court’s judgment on the s 44 appeal.…
Ralph and Repatriation Commission
[2013] AATA 948 Para 16

…The Tribunal adhered to these conclusions in its final decision in respect of the review which it conducted: Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2013] AATA 948 (the 2013 decision). The correctness of that approach was upheld by the primary judge on the s 44 appeal. Further, his Honour noted, correctly, that s 160 of…
DESMOND FRANCIS RALPH and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
[2011] AATA 881 Para 15

…ication was “received” by the Department. That conclusion was initially expressed in an interlocutory decision, Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 881 (the 2011 decision). The Tribunal made an affirmative finding, based on the departmental date stamp, that the application was received by the Department on…
Collett v Repatriation Commission
[2009] FCA 667

…00) 174 ALR 747; (2000) 113 A Crim 227 Capper v Thorpe (1998) 194 CLR 342 Collett v Repatriation Commission (2009) 178 FCR 39 Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1032 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73 Grant v Repatriation Commission (1999) 57 ALD 1; [1999] FCA…
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2)
[2001] FCA 1865 Para 13

…vent. That does not invariably follow. Citing Shelton v Repatriation Commission (1999) 85 FCR 587 at 590, [10] – [11] and Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 at 234–241, [9] – [25] ( Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) ) per Black CJ and French J (as the Chief Justice then was), Mr Ralph submitted that the particular…
Counsel v Repatriation Commission
[2001] FCA 1032 Para 12

…entails no contract). In Repatriation Commission v Buckingham [1996] FCA 37 ( Buckingham ), as Moore J found in Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1032 at [13] ( Counsel ), Ryan J accepted as correct the position conceded by the parties that the provision of free accommodation to a person who undertook v…
Cabal v United Mexican States
[2000] FCA 1945 Para 18

…In Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) , at 240-241, [25], Black CJ and French J, referring to Cabal v United Mexican States (No 6) (2000) 174 ALR 747 at 753; (2000) 113 A Crim 227 at [22] per Goldberg J ( Cabal ), cited cases concerning liberty of an individual as an example of those where individual and wid…
Cabal v United Mexican States (No 6)
[2000] FCA 651 Para 18

…In Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) , at 240-241, [25], Black CJ and French J, referring to Cabal v United Mexican States (No 6) (2000) 174 ALR 747 at 753; (2000) 113 A Crim 227 at [22] per Goldberg J ( Cabal ), cited cases concerning liberty of an individual as an example of those where individual and wider public interest…
Thomson v Repatriation Commission
[2000] FCA 204 Para 13

…lso, as to the difference in focus as between s 24(2A)(d) and 24(2A)(g) of the VEA, Thomson v Repatriation Commission (2000) 96 FCR 550 at 554-555, [10] ( Thomson ).…
Grant v Repatriation Commission
[1999] FCA 1629 Para 13

…last paid work was undertaken. This was the point made by the Full Court in Grant v Repatriation Commission (1999) 57 ALD 1 at 4; [1999] FCA 1629 at [9] ( Grant ), both in explaining the concept of “remunerative work” and in distinguishing the subject of inquiry under s 24(2A)(d) from that in s 24(2A) (g) of the V…
Shelton v Repatriation Commission
[1999] FCA 181

…sion v Buckingham [1996] FCA Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 Shelton v Repatriation Commission (1999) 85 FCR 587 Thomson v Repatriation Commission (2000) 96 FCR 550 Wilson v Wilson’s Tile Works Pty Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 328 Date of hearing: 19 November 2015 Date of last submissions: 27 November 2015 Registry: Victoria Division:…
Capper v Thorpe
[1998] HCA 24 Para 19

…In Capper v Thorpe (1998) 194 CLR 342, at 352, [23] the High Court observed of ss 75 and 76 of the Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) and their equivalents elsewhere in Australia, which materially include s 28A and s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act: [In] Western Australia, as elsewhere in Australia, the Legislature by en…
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang
[1996] HCA 6 Para 15

…of why the decision was made and must not be narrowly scrutinised with an eye for error: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 ( Wu Shan Liang ). The cautionary note sounded in Wu Shan Liang is of enduring resonance.…
Repatriation Commission v Buckingham
[1996] FCA 37 Para 12

…r arrangement might suffice (as would the holding of an office on commission, which entails no contract). In Repatriation Commission v Buckingham [1996] FCA 37 ( Buckingham ), as Moore J found in Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1032 at [13] ( Counsel ), Ryan J accepted as correct the position conced…
Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission
[1991] FCA 635 Para 10

…flowing from that plain meaning is for Parliament, not the courts. This was the point made by Pincus J in Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73 at 77 ( Gauntlett ) when, on that occasion, it was the Commission which had highlighted in submissions what was said to be an anomaly flowing from the text o…
Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd
[1983] HCA 25 Para 19

…t of the proposition found in the second sentence of the passage just quoted, it is sufficient just to refer to Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87. In that case, the Queensland equivalent of s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act, s 39(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) and a provision in tha…
Wilson v Wilson's Tile Works Pty Ltd
[1960] HCA 63 Para 10

…onveyed Parliament’s intent. But it is possible to give meaning to the text of s 24(2A)(g). Long ago now, in Wilson v Wilson’s Tile Works Pty Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 328 at 331, a case concerning the construction of other legislation directed towards beneficial ends, Dixon CJ (with whom Windeyer J agreed) observed of a pr…
Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond
[1986] HCA 7 Para 15

…on law, officers of the executive government are not obliged to furnish reasons for their decisions: Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656. This position has been much altered by statute so as to create such an obligation, in the case of the Tribunal, by ss 43(2), 43(2A) and 43(2B) of th…
[1942] AC 206
[1942] AC 206 Para 20

…but to highlight that the discretion falls to be exercised in the circumstances of a particular case. Sometimes, as notably in Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206, orders other than the usual order as to costs will be the result of an intimation from the bench and a corresponding understanding of principle and…
Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond
(1986) 159 CLR 616 Para 15

…s with a special charter of independence. At common law, officers of the executive government are not obliged to furnish reasons for their decisions: Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656. This position has been much altered by statute so as to create such an obligation, in the case of the Tribunal, by ss 43(2), 43(2A) and…

Legislation cited in this decision · 9

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)
14, 15, 180(i)(d), 19, 24(2A), 24(2A)(d)... 9 mentions (from Para 1)
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
2(2), 28A, 29 4 mentions (from Para 13)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
33(1)(c), 43, 44 4 mentions (from Para 2)
Interpretation Act 1984 (WA)
75, 76 3 mentions (from Para 19)
Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld)
39(1) 2 mentions (from Para 19)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth)
160 2 mentions (from Para 13)
Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 16)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
1 mention
Legislation Amendment Act 1994 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 9)

Appeal from:	Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCA 165
File number:	VID 148 of 2015
Judges:	COLLIER, LOGAN AND MCKERRACHER JJ
Date of judgment:	22 June 2016
Catchwords:	DEFENCE AND WAR – Veterans’ entitlements – application for special rate of pension under Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – whether application lodged prior to applicant turning 65 – delivery and receipt – by s 5T(2) lodgment taken to occur on receipt – application, if any, of s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and s 160 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – whether application lodged at approved place under s 5T(2) – no legal error – appeal dismissed DEFENCE AND WAR – Veterans’ entitlements – application for special rate of pension under s 24(2A) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – whether applicant was engaged in “remunerative work” – whether primary judge misconstrued “working … for a continuous period of at least 10 years” – Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 24(2A)(d), 24(2A)(g) – no legal error – appeal dismissed COSTS – whether to exercise discretion that costs follow the event – whether issue was of wider public interest – anomaly in drafting of s 24(2A)(g) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – anomaly warrants departure from usual order – no order as to costs
EVIDENCE – Proof - facilitating proof - matters relating to post and communications – inapplicability of s 29 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) and s 160 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) – requirement for receipt of claims and applications for disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – sufficiency of departmental date stamp as proof of receipt for administrative purposes.
Legislation:	Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ss 2(2), 28A, 29 Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld) s 39(1) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44, 33(1)(c), 43 Defence (Personnel) Regulations 2002 (Cth) Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 160 Interpretation Act 1984 (WA) ss 75, 76 Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 14, 15, 24(2A), 5T, 19, 180(i)(d)
Cases cited:	Cabal v United Mexican States (No 6) (2000) 174 ALR 747; (2000) 113 A Crim 227 Capper v Thorpe (1998) 194 CLR 342 Collett v Repatriation Commission (2009) 178 FCR 39 Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1032 Fancourt v Mercantile Credits Ltd (1983) 154 CLR 87 Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73 Grant v Repatriation Commission (1999) 57 ALD 1; [1999] FCA 1629 Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206 Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 Public Service Board of New South Wales v Osmond (1986) 159 CLR 656 Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 881 Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2013] AATA 948 Ralph v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCA 165 Repatriation Commission v Buckingham [1996] FCA Ruddock v Vadarlis(No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 Shelton v Repatriation Commission (1999) 85 FCR 587 Thomson v…