CATCHWORDS –VETERANS' AFFAIRS - veterans' entitlements – Statement of Principle revoked after claim lodged – whether claim should be considered by reference to Statement of Principle in force at time claim lodged or subsequent Statement of Principle - whether accrued right to have claim reviewed by reference to Statement of Principle in force at time of claim – decision affirmed.
Tribunal: Miss S A Forgie (Deputy President) Date: 6 September, 2002 Place: Adelaide
Decision:The Tribunal in so far as the decision of the respondent dated 24 August, 2000 and affirmed by a decision of the Veterans' Review Board dated 12 April, 2001 relates to a claim made by the applicant for generalised anxiety disorder, it is to be reviewed by reference to the Statement of Principle in Instrument No. 1 of 2000.
S A FORGIE Deputy President
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 13 June, 2001, the applicant, Mr Jeffrey Greenough, applied for review of three decisions of the respondent, the Repatriation Commission ("the Commission"). All related to claims made by Mr Greenough for a pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ("the Act") on the basis that he is incapacitated from a war-caused injury or war-caused disease. The first decision was dated 1 December, 1998 and refused Mr Greenough's claim dated 6 October, 1998 and based on his having suffered a personality change. The second and third decisions were dated 24 August, 2000 and, in so far as they are relevant to this case, refused his claims dated 1 November, 1999 for post traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD")/anxiety, alcohol dependence and irritable…
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 Greenough and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Re Greenough and Repatriation Commission [2002] AATA 774
Case
[2002] AATA 774
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was an appeal by Mr Jeffrey Greenough against decisions of the Repatriation Commission and the Veterans' Review Board. The appeal was in relation to Mr Greenough's claim for a pension based on his alleged war-caused disability. The Tribunal had to decide whether Mr Greenough's claim should be considered by reference to the Statement of Principle in force at the time he lodged his claim or to a subsequent Statement of Principle. The Tribunal found that the Statement of Principle in force at the time of the Commission's decision should apply. The Tribunal held that Mr Greenough did not accrue a right to have his claim determined according to the state of affairs prevailing at the time he lodged his claim. However, he did accrue a right to have his claim decided by the Commission and to have the Commission's decision reviewed by the Veterans' Review Board and then by the Tribunal. In reviewing the Commission's decision, the Tribunal must have regard to the Statement of Principle in force at the time of the Tribunal's decision. It may not have regard to a Statement of Principle that was revoked before the Commission made its decision.