FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
REPATRIATION COMMISSION v LINTON [2001] FMCA 124
VETERANS AFFAIRS – Veteran’s entitlements – disability pension – appeal from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – error of law – failure to properly apply Statement of Principles – whether chronic airflow limitation war-caused.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Failure to provide reasons as required by s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 – failure to consider relevant submission.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 43(2B), 44
Veterans Entitlement Act 1986 s 9, 119, 120(1), 120A(3), 196B(2)
Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
Repatriation Commission v Gosewinckel (1999) FCA 1273
Connors v Repatriation Commission 59 ALD 61
Ingram v Repatriation Commission 2001 FMCA 125
Hill v Repatriation Commission (2001) FMCA 83
Dennis Wilcox Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 99 ALR 267
Repatriation Commission v Rogers (1999) FCA 489
Harris v Repatriation Commission (2000) FCA 873
| Applicant: | REPATRIATION COMMISSION |
| Respondent: | GRAHAM ALEXANDER LINTON |
| File No: | MZ 239 of 2000 |
| Delivered on: | 20 December 2001 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing Date: | 15 December 2000 |
| Judgment of: | McInnis FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr P Hanks QC |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Australian Government Solicitor |
| Solicitor for the Respondent: | Mr D De Marchi |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | De Marchi & Associates |
ORDERS
The appeal be allowed.
The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 27 July 2000 be set aside.
The decision of the Commission dated 29 November 1995 be affirmed save that in lieu of the reference to “asthma” there be inserted reference to “chronic airflow limitation and/or chronic bronchitis”.
The respondent pay the applicant’s costs to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules.
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE
MZ 239 of 2000
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Applicant
And
GRAHAM ALEXANDER LINTON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Background
The Repatriation Commission (the Commission) is the Applicant in an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the AAT Act) from a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) delivered on 27 July 2000.
GRAHAM ALEXANDER LINTON (Mr Linton) had applied to the AAT to set aside a Decision of the Commission which had been made in response to a claim for pension lodged on 1 September 1995.
The Commission decided that Mr Linton’s asthma was not a war caused disease. The AAT amended the diagnosis of the claimed condition to “Chronic Airflow Limitation” (CAL). The AAT then decided that Mr Linton’s CAL was war caused within s 9 of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (the VE Act). As a consequence of the AAT Decision the Commonwealth is liable to pay a pension under s 13 of the VE Act for Mr Linton’s incapacity from CAL.
Certain facts before the Court were not in issue and likewise had not been in issue before the AAT. In summary those facts are that Mr Linton was born on 2…
Continue reading Repatriation Commission v Linton
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Repatriation Commission v Linton [2001] FMCA 124
- Case
- [2001] FMCA 124
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had correctly interpreted the term “asthma” when it found that Linton’s chronic airflow limitation and chronic bronchitis constituted a form of asthma. The court had to determine the appropriate scope of the term “asthma” in the context of the Repatriation Act and decide if the AAT’s interpretation was legally sound. The court also had to consider the implications of the AAT’s decision on the pension eligibility of Linton and other similarly situated individuals.
The Federal Court held that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of “asthma.” The court found that the term “asthma” did not encompass chronic airflow limitation and chronic bronchitis, as these conditions were distinct medical entities with different diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols. The court concluded that the AAT’s decision was legally flawed as it misapplied the definition of “asthma.” The court affirmed the Commission’s original decision but substituted the reference to “asthma” with “chronic airflow limitation and/or chronic bronchitis” to accurately reflect Linton’s medical condition. The court set aside the AAT’s decision and ordered that the respondent pay the applicant’s costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The appeal be allowed.
2.
The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 27 July 2000 be set aside.
3.
The decision of the Commission dated 29 November 1995 be affirmed save that in lieu of the reference to “asthma” there be inserted reference to “chronic airflow limitation and/or chronic bronchitis”.
4.
The respondent pay the applicant’s costs to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to Order 62 of the Federal Court Rules.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.