Legal Research
Cases
Re Ryan and Repatriation Commission

Re Ryan and Repatriation Commission

Case [2000] AATA 849 22 September 2000

Judicial Review

Statutory Interpretation

Adverse Possession

Administrative Law

Veterans' Affairs

Type to search within this case.

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 849

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No V99/689

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION     )
           Re      Reginald Gordon Ryan
  Applicant
           And    Repatriation Commission
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President B.M. Forrest Mr A. Argent, Member Dr P.D. Fricker, Member

Date22 September 2000
PlaceMelbourne

Decision      The Tribunal affirms the decision of the respondent dated 24 September 1997 and affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board on 28 April 1999 that the condition of bilateral open-angle glaucoma was not war-caused.
  ........(Sgd. B.M. Forrest)............
  Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – Claim for pension for condition of open-angle glaucoma – Statements of Principles – Statement of Principles applicable at time of Repatriation Commission decision subsequently revoked – at time of Administrative Appeals Tribunal review a new Statement of Principles in force – later Statement of Principles more beneficial to veteran – whether rights accrued under earlier Statement of Principles – whether contrary intention shown – application of earlier Statement of Principles – decision affirmed.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss. 120(4), 120A, 120B, 196A and 196B
Repatriation Act 1920
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s. 50
Keeley v Repatriation Commission (1999) 30 AAR 48; (1999) 56 ALD 455;
Repatriation Commission v Keeley (2000) 31 AAR 150
Re Ogston and Repatriation Commission (1998) 27 AAR 176;
Ogston v Repatriation Commission (1998-1999) 56 ALD 789 (decision note)
Gantrell v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 1228
Reading and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 841

REASONS FOR DECISION

22 September 2000 Deputy President B.M. Forrest Mr A. Argent, Member Dr P.D. Fricker, Member

The applicant, Mr Reginald Gordon Ryan ("the veteran"), has applied to the Tribunal for a review of a decision of a delegate of the Repatriation Commission ("the Commission") made on 24 September 1997 to refuse a claim for pension for the condition of bilateral open-angle glaucoma. That decision was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board ("the VRB") on 28 April 1999. Other conditions suffered by the veteran which were the subject of a Commission decision on 17 April 1997 and the VRB decision of 28 April 1999 and were included in the application to the Tribunal were withdrawn by the veteran's Counsel Mr G. Moore when the matter came on for hearing.
The veteran was born on 23 February 1920 and began full time duty in the Army on 25 March 1942. He transferred to the AIF on 20 October 1942 and served in 134 Australian General Transport Company in New South Wales, Queensland and the Northern Territory. Later he served in other transport units in New South Wales and Victoria. He was discharged from the Australian Regular Army on 4 May 1948.
In his evidence the veteran said his unit was based at Mount Isa and he drove trucks on the east-west road (to just north of Tennant Creek) and then on the north-south road to Darwin and return. He said he experienced glare on these trips. He was not issued dark glasses.
Post-war he worked in a brewery and then from…

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 Ryan and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Re Ryan and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 849
Case: [2000] AATA 849
Decision Date: 22 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between a veteran, Mr. Ryan, and the Repatriation Commission regarding a claim for pension benefits for a condition of open-angle glaucoma. The dispute arose after the Repatriation Commission denied Mr. Ryan's pension claim. The case was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which ultimately affirmed the Repatriation Commission's decision.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the rights of the veteran accrued under the earlier Statement of Principles, which had been revoked, or whether a contrary intention was demonstrated by the subsequent enactment of a more beneficial Statement of Principles. The court had to interpret relevant legislative provisions, including the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, the Repatriation Act 1920, and the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), to determine the appropriate application of the relevant law.

In reaching its decision, the court considered precedent cases such as Keeley v Repatriation Commission, Re Ogston and Repatriation Commission, and Gantrell v Repatriation Commission. The court concluded that the rights of the veteran accrued under the earlier Statement of Principles, as no contrary intention was demonstrated by the enactment of the later Statement of Principles. The court found that the subsequent revocation of the earlier Statement of Principles and the enactment of a more beneficial one did not alter the accrued rights of the veteran. The decision of the Repatriation Commission was affirmed.

The final orders of the court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, which had denied the veteran's claim for pension benefits for the condition of open-angle glaucoma. The court found that the veteran's rights accrued under the earlier Statement of Principles, and the subsequent enactment of a more beneficial Statement of Principles did not alter those accrued rights.

Orders