Repatriation Pension—Incapacity or death arising out of or attributable to war service—Connexion between contracting of disease and war service—Onus of disproof—Function of Repatriation Review Tribunal—Repatriation Act 1920 (Cth), ss. 23 "Incapacity", 47 (2), 64, 101 (1), (1A), 107VC, 107VH.
Decisions
1981, October 16. The following written judgments were delivered: - GIBBS C.J. I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment prepared by my brother Aickin. I agree with them, and could not usefully add anything to them. (at p638)
2. An objection to the competency of the appeal was lodged by the respondent but was rightly abandoned, since the value of the respondent's entitlement to a pension, which is in issue, exceeds $20,000. I would accordingly overrule the objection to competency, but would dismiss the appeal. (at p638)
STEPHEN J. I would dismiss this appeal for the reasons stated by Aickin J. (at p638)
MASON J. I would dismiss the appeal for the reasons given by Aickin J. (at p638)
MURPHY J. The Repatriation Act 1920, (Cth) as amended, requires that a claim or application be granted by the Repatriation Commission or an appeal allowed by the Repatriation Review Tribunal unless the Commission or Tribunal is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there are insufficient grounds to grant the claim or application or allow the appeal (ss. 47 (2), 107VH (2) (a)). Thus the Commission and Tribunal are bound to grant claims even if they are satisfied there are probably insufficient grounds, unless they are so satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The Act thus effectively imposes on the Commission an onus of disproof, or proof of a negative, beyond reasonable doubt. (at p638)
2. In ancient and modern civilizations the treatment of former soldiers and sailors has been an important social issue. Historically the tendency has been to discard them and ignore the physical, social or economic damage to them by military service. The Australian solution to the problem of ensuring that the costs of war-related losses were borne by society rather than fall on the injured persons or their dependants was the adoption (along with other measures) of the "onus of proof" section in war veterans legislation which requires the Commonwealth or its agency to disprove a claim rather than to require the claimant to prove it. It has been obvious that this remedial section would result and has resulted in many claims being allowed which in truth were not well-founded. This was the price of ensuring that no valid claim was rejected because of insufficiency of proof. (at p639)
3. The present legislation establishes the standard of proof by the Commonwealth or its agent as proof beyond reasonable doubt. In criminal law the onus of proof beyond reasonable doubt has often been justified on the basis that it is better that many guilty escape than that one innocent be convicted. Section…
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 Law
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Repatriation Commission v Law [1981] HCA 57
Case
[1981] HCA 57
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of the Repatriation Commission against a decision of the Federal Court of Australia concerning the entitlement of Mr. Law to a pension under the *Repatriation Act 1920* (Cth). Mr. Law, a former member of the Australian armed forces, claimed a pension for a war-caused disability, specifically a condition of the knee. The dispute centred on whether Mr. Law's knee condition was attributable to his war service, a prerequisite for receiving a pension under the Act.
The primary legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation and application of section 47 of the *Repatriation Act 1920* (Cth). This section, often referred to as the "beneficial provisions" or "presumption of service causation," stipulated that if a member of the forces suffered a disability which existed at the time of discharge, and that disability was not recorded at the time of enlistment, then the disability was deemed to have arisen out of or been aggravated by war service unless the contrary was proved. The court had to determine whether the evidence presented by the Repatriation Commission was sufficient to rebut this statutory presumption in Mr. Law's case.
The High Court, by majority, held that the Repatriation Commission had failed to discharge the onus placed upon it by section 47 to prove that Mr. Law's knee condition was not attributable to his war service. The court reasoned that the evidence regarding the pre-enlistment condition of Mr. Law's knee was not sufficiently clear or cogent to overcome the statutory presumption. The principles applied emphasised the beneficial nature of the Act and the high standard of proof required to displace the presumption in favour of the ex-serviceman. The appeal was dismissed.