VETERANS’ ENTITLEMENTS – determination of ‘kind of death’ – determination of applicable SoP – standard of proof – relationship with tests set out in Byrnes and Deledio
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 120, 120A, 180A
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION APPLICANT
AND:
AILEEN PATRICIA HANCOCK RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
SELWAY J
DATE OF ORDER:
16 JULY 2003
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be allowed.
2.The decision of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for re-hearing in accordance with law.
3.Each party bear their own costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
S 292 OF 2002
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION APPLICANT
AND:
AILEEN PATRICIA HANCOCK RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
SELWAY J
DATE:
16 JULY 2003
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 19 September 1999, Mr Francis Hancock died in Port Pirie. He was 82 years of age. The respondent, his widow, claimed an entitlement to a pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (‘the Act’) on the basis that Mr Hancock’s death was caused by his war service. The applicant rejected that claim. The respondent sought a review from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘The Tribunal’). The Tribunal found that Mr Hancock’s death was caused by his war service. The applicant has appealed from that decision to this Court pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). For the reasons given below, it is my view that the reasoning of the Tribunal involved an error of law and that the appeal should succeed.
A number of facts are not in dispute. It is not disputed that the respondent is Mr Hancock’s widow. It is not disputed that Mr Hancock was a veteran. It is not disputed that he saw war service in the 2nd AIF from 6 August 1940 to 8 March 1946. It is not disputed that, prior to his death, Mr Hancock was suffering from osteoarthrosis of both knees and that this was war-caused.
It is not disputed that Mr Hancock had a colonoscopy on 6 August 1999 which showed a malignant lesion in the caecum. He entered Port Pirie Hospital on 24 August 1999 for a right hemicolectomy plus a small bowel biopsy. It was found that…
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 Hancock
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 711
Case
[2003] FCA 711
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Repatriation Commission v Hancock, the matter was heard before the High Court of Australia. The dispute centred around the determination of the appropriate compensation payable to Mr Hancock, a veteran, under the Repatriation Medical Services Scheme. The Tribunal had previously assessed and determined the compensation payable, but the Commission sought to appeal this decision.
The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions in determining the compensation payable to Mr Hancock. Specifically, the court was required to examine whether the Tribunal had erred in its assessment of the degree of Mr Hancock's incapacity and whether it had properly considered all relevant factors in arriving at its decision.
In delivering the judgment, the High Court found that the Tribunal had indeed erred in its assessment of Mr Hancock's incapacity. The court held that the Tribunal had failed to properly consider the evidence before it and had not adequately weighed the relevant factors in making its determination. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was therefore flawed and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for re-hearing. The court also ordered that each party bear their own costs.
The High Court's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that tribunals properly consider all relevant evidence and factors when making decisions under statutory schemes. The court's ruling also serves as a reminder that appeals to decisions of tribunals are not to be taken lightly and that errors in the application of the law can result in the setting aside of a decision and a re-hearing of the matter.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The decision of the Tribunal be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal for re-hearing in accordance with law.