Renton v Repatriation Commission (No 2)

[2009] FCA 792

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Renton v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2009] FCA 792

DONALD KEITH RENTON v REPATRIATION COMMISSION

QUD 280 of 2007

DOWSETT J
30 JULY 2009
BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 280 of 2007

BETWEEN: DONALD KEITH RENTON
Applicant

AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	30 JULY 2009
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.the appeal be dismissed; and

2.there be no order as to costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 280 of 2007

BETWEEN: DONALD KEITH RENTON
Applicant

AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	30 JULY 2009
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. I delivered judgment in this matter on 27 March 2009.  At that time I asked the parties to make submissions as to appropriate orders.  These submissions were, understandably, not received until early April, by which time I had gone on leave for two months.  Since my return, other matters have, until now, prevented me from disposing of all outstanding issues.

2. The applicant claimed a disability pension, alleging that he suffered from a war-caused anxiety disorder and war-caused alcohol dependence.  The Veterans’ Review Board upheld his claim concerning the anxiety disorder but concluded that his alcohol dependence was not war-caused.  In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “AAT”) he argued that his alcohol dependence was either war-caused or aggravated by his war service.  The AAT found that the onset of his alcohol dependence pre-dated his war service, and that there was no evidence of aggravation.

3. I identified certain errors in the reasoning of the Tribunal, indicated my intention to allow the appeal, and invited the parties to make submissions as to appropriate orders.  The applicant submits that I should simply allow the appeal, remit the matter to the AAT for further consideration and order that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs.  The respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed, and that there should be no order as to costs.

4. Generally, the fact that an error in reasoning has been demonstrated will lead to the matter being remitted for further consideration.  However the respondent draws my attention to the findings of fact mentioned above.  They are fatal to the applicant’s case and not open to challenge on this appeal.  Unfortunately, the way in which the matter was conducted tended to conceal this weakness in the applicant’s case. 

5. In the circumstances the appropriate order pursuant to s 44(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) is that the appeal be dismissed. As the respondent suggests, there will be no order as to costs.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:        30 July 2009

Counsel for the Applicant:	Ms A Frizelle
Solicitor for the Applicant:	GF Couper Solicitors
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms H Bowskill
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor

Dates of Hearing:	28 July 2008, 27 March 2009
Date of Final Written Submissions:	6 April 2009
Date of Judgment:	30 July 2009