ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS' APPEAL DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
BETWEEN:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Applicant
AND:
RONALD KEITH GOSEWINCKEL
Respondent
JUDGE:
WEINBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:
14 SEPTEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The decision of the Veterans' Appeal Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given on 29 October 1998 be set aside.
2. The matter be remitted to the Veterans' Appeal Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be dealt with according to law.
3. There be no order as to costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 650 OF 1998
ON APPEAL FROM THE VETERANS' APPEAL DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
BETWEEN:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Applicant
AND:
RONALD KEITH GOSEWINCKEL
Respondent
JUDGE:
WEINBERG J
DATE:
14 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 This is an appeal under s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("the AAT Act") from part of a decision of the Veterans' Appeal Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT") given on 29 October 1998.
2 By that decision the AAT set aside a decision of the applicant which had been affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board. The AAT decided that the respondent veteran's generalised anxiety disorder was war-caused. The effect of the AAT's decision was to render the Commonwealth liable to pay pension to the veteran pursuant to s 13(1) of the Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth) ("the VE…
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 Gosewinckel
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Repatriation Commission v Ronald Keith Gosewinckel [1999] FCA
1273
Ex-Servicemen
Case
[1999] FCA 1273
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel involved the Repatriation Commission, appealing against a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) regarding a veteran's entitlement to a disability pension. The dispute centred around whether the veteran, Mr Gosewinckel, suffered from a war-caused generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) that warranted the pension. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, which had to decide on several legal issues pertaining to the application of the correct standard of proof and the interpretation of relevant Statements of Principles.
The primary legal issues before the court were whether the AAT had applied the correct standard of proof when deciding that Mr Gosewinckel suffered from GAD, and whether the AAT had misconstrued the relevant Statement of Principles by failing to consider whether the necessary indicia were present. The court had to examine the AAT's application of the statutory criteria and its interpretation of the Statement of Principles concerning the conditions necessary for a war-caused GAD to be recognised for pension purposes.
The court found that the AAT had indeed erred in its application of the standard of proof required to establish Mr Gosewinckel's entitlement to the pension. The court held that the AAT had applied a higher standard than what was legally required, which influenced the outcome of the case. Additionally, the court determined that the AAT had misconstrued the relevant Statement of Principles by not properly considering whether the necessary indicia were present to substantiate the claim of a war-caused GAD. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the AAT and remitted the matter back to the Veterans' Appeal Division of the AAT for reconsideration according to law.
The final orders of the court were to set aside the decision of the Veterans' Appeal Division of the AAT given on 29 October 1998 and to remit the matter back to the AAT for further consideration. This ruling ensured that the correct legal standards and interpretations were applied in determining Mr Gosewinckel's eligibility for the disability pension.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Veterans' Appeal Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given on 29 October 1998 be set aside.
2. The matter be remitted to the Veterans' Appeal Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be dealt with according to law.