Re Chaplin and Repatriation Commission - [2000] AATA 688

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 688

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N1998/1643

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re STEVEN JOHN CHAPLIN
Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date4 July 2000
PlaceSydney

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )         No   N1998/1643
  )
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION                )

Re STEVEN JOHN CHAPLIN
Applicant

AndREPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M.D. Allen

Date 4 July 2000

Place Sydney

DecisionFOR the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the decision under review is SET ASIDE and the Tribunal substitutes in lieu thereof its decision, namely THAT:
1.    The Applicant, STEVEN JOHN CHAPLIN, is entitled to pension for the defence-caused disease of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and
2.    The Applicant is entitled to pension for incapacity for the above-mentioned disease as and from 5 February 1997.
(Sgd)  M.D. ALLEN
.............................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - Defence caused post traumatic stress disorder. Whether condition in fact existed. Whether Statement of Principles met particularly objective test for a severe stressor.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

Repatriation Commission v Smith 15 FCR 327
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) FCA 532
Midland Metals Overseas Ltd v Comptroller General of Customs 30 FCR 87
Re Quinn v Australian Postal Corporation 15 AAR 519
Mackay and Repatriation Commission (2000) AATA 483

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M D Allen

At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally. After service upon the Respondent of a copy of the decision that was in fact made, the Respondent pursuant to Sub-section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requested the Tribunal to furnish to the Respondent a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service. Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reasons for the said decision.

The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Respondent and to the Applicant as it is the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision herein of:
Senior Member M D Allen

Signed: Kwai-Ling Wong
....................................................................................
Associate

Date of Hearing  4 July 2000
Date of Decision  4 July 2000
Solicitor for Applicant  Mr R Sherlock,
  Legal Aid Commission of NSW
Advocate for Respondent            Mr R Wallis, Department of Veterans' Affairs
DRAFT DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Matter No N1998/1643
By MR M.D. ALLEN, SENIOR MEMBER
CHAPLIN and repatriation department
SYDNEY, 4 JULY 2000
MR ALLEN: By application made 16 November 1998, the applicant sought review of a determination by the respondent made 18 September 1997 and affirmed by a Veterans' Review Board that his post traumatic stress disorder was not a defence caused disease. The claim relates to the…

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 Re Chaplin and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Re Chaplin and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 688
Case: [2000] AATA 688
Decision Date: 4 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Repatriation Commission and Smith, a former member of the Defence Force. Smith claimed that his post traumatic stress disorder was caused by his service in the Defence Force. The issue before the court was whether the condition in fact existed, and whether the Statement of Principles met the objective test for a severe stressor as per the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The court had to decide whether Smith's condition was caused by his service in the Defence Force and whether it met the threshold of a severe stressor as per the Statement of Principles. The court also had to determine whether the Repatriation Commission's decision to deny Smith's claim was lawful, reasonable and just. The court had to consider the relevant legal principles and authorities in making its decision.

The court found that Smith's condition did exist and was caused by his service in the Defence Force. However, the court held that the condition did not meet the threshold of a severe stressor as per the Statement of Principles. The court found that the Repatriation Commission's decision to deny Smith's claim was lawful, reasonable and just. The court relied on the authorities of Repatriation Commission v Smith, Repatriation Commission v Keeley, Midland Metals Overseas Ltd v Comptroller General of Customs and Re Quinn v Australian Postal Corporation in making its decision.

The court dismissed Smith's appeal and affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission. The court held that the Repatriation Commission's decision was based on a correct application of the law and was supported by the evidence. The court held that the Repatriation Commission was not required to make a finding on whether Smith's condition met the threshold of a severe stressor as per the Statement of Principles, as the condition did not exist in any event.

Orders