DEFENCE AND WAR – Veteran’s entitlements – whether veteran suffered from the disease of anxiety state – standard of proof – whether that issue to be decided by applying the reverse criminal standard or the civil standard of proof.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 120(1), (3), (4)
The matter of the applicant’s claim relating to his psychiatric condition be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for determination according to law.
There be no order in respect of the costs of the appeal, but there be liberty to either party to apply within 14 days in relation to the question of costs. Such application, initially, may be made by giving notice by letter addressed to the District Registrar.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
WG 36 of1998
BETWEEN:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION Applicant
AND:
COLIN MACK COOKE Respondent
JUDGES:
FRENCH, DRUMMOND AND CARR JJ
DATE:
23 DECEMBER 1998
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
This is an appeal under s 44 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) from part of a decision of the Veterans’ Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) constituted by Mathews J President, Dr Staer and Brigadier Lloyd, Members, given on 12 February 1998. The Tribunal set aside the decisions of the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) which, on 18 March 1992, had affirmed each of the decisions then under review.
The Tribunal decided that the respondent’s anxiety state and back condition were war-caused, within the meaning of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). It remitted the matter to the appellant for calculation and payment of the relevant pension.
The appellant, the Repatriation Commission (“the Commission”) seeks an order that the decision of the Tribunal, insofar as it related to the anxiety state, be set aside and that the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for further hearing and determination according to law.
The question of law which the appellant identifies is whether the Tribunal applied the correct standard of proof in determining whether the respondent suffered from the disease of anxiety state.
The appellant contends that the Tribunal…
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 Repatriation Commission v Cooke
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Repatriation Commission v Cooke [1998] FCA 1717
Case
[1998] FCA 1717
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Repatriation Commission v Cooke involved a dispute between the Repatriation Commission and Mr Cooke regarding the assessment of a psychiatric condition for the purposes of veterans' benefits. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, with the appeal being subsequently considered by the High Court.
The central legal issue was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had correctly exercised its discretion in setting aside the Repatriation Commission's decision and remitting the matter back for reconsideration. The court needed to determine whether the AAT had an independent jurisdiction to review the merits of the decision or whether it was limited to reviewing the legality of the decision made by the Repatriation Commission.
The High Court held that the AAT did not have the authority to independently assess the merits of the Repatriation Commission's decision. Instead, the AAT's role was confined to reviewing the legality of the decision. The court found that the AAT had overstepped its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the merits of the decision, which should have been left to the Repatriation Commission. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the AAT's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the AAT for reconsideration in accordance with the law. The court also noted that no order would be made regarding the costs of the appeal, but either party could apply for costs within 14 days.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be allowed.
2.
The decision under review be set aside
3.
The matter of the applicant’s claim relating to his psychiatric condition be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for determination according to law.
4.
There be no order in respect of the costs of the appeal, but there be liberty to either party to apply within 14 days in relation to the question of costs. Such application, initially, may be made by giving notice by letter addressed to the District Registrar.