Sharley v Repatriation Commission

Case [2013] FCA 1031

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sharley v Repatriation Commission [2013] FCA 1031

Citation: Sharley v Repatriation Commission [2013] FCA 1031
Appeal from: Administrative Appeals Tribunal: [2010] AATA 474
Parties: JOHN DOUGLAS SHARLEY v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
File number: VID 635 of 2010
Judge: JESSUP J
Date of judgment: 14 October 2013
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal under s 44 of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – Tribunal affirmed decision of respondent that applicant did not suffer from war-caused post-traumatic stress disorder and remitted to respondent question whether applicant suffered from war-caused osteoarthritis – whether Tribunal erred by not addressing whether material before it was sufficient to justify conclusion or by failing to apply relevant Statement of Principles correctly – whether Tribunal erred by not providing adequate reasons for its conclusion that applicant did not suffer war-caused post-traumatic stress disorder – whether Tribunal erred by not providing written reasons for part of applicant’s claim relating to osteoarthritis after respondent’s affirmation of decision remitted by Tribunal under s 42D of Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 42D, 43, 44
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B
Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (Cth), ss 7, 9, 13, 120, 120A, 196B
Cases cited: Hill v Repatriation Commission (2004) 207 ALR 470
Repatriation Commission v Bawden (2012) 206 FCR 296 Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 Repatriation Commission v Hendy (2002) 76 ALD 47 Smith v Repatriation Commission (2012) 131 ALD 63
Date of hearing: 3 September 2013
Place: Melbourne
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 28
Counsel for the Applicant: C B Thomson
Solicitor for the Applicant: Peter Liefman
Counsel for the Respondent: C Dowsett
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 635 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

JOHN DOUGLAS SHARLEY
Applicant
AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 OCTOBER 2013

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.With respect to so much of the applicant’s claims under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) as relate to osteoarthritis of the knees, the case be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for those claims to be determined conformably with s 42D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

2.The application otherwise be dismissed.

3.The parties file and serve written submissions as to costs in accordance with the following timetable:

(a)The applicant, within 14 days;

(b)The respondent, within a further 14 days;

(c)The applicant in reply, if necessary, within a further 7 days.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 635 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

JOHN DOUGLAS SHARLEY
Applicant
AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

JESSUP J

DATE:

14 OCTOBER 2013

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act

Continue reading Sharley v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Sharley v Repatriation Commission [2013] FCA 1031
Case
[2013] FCA 1031
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sharley v Repatriation Commission, the applicant, Mr. Sharley, sought a review of decisions made by the Repatriation Commission regarding his claims for war-related disabilities. These claims included post-traumatic stress disorder and osteoarthritis, which arose from his service during the Vietnam War. The matter was initially heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which upheld the Repatriation Commission’s decision that Mr. Sharley did not suffer from war-caused post-traumatic stress disorder. The AAT did, however, remit the question of whether Mr. Sharley suffered from war-caused osteoarthritis back to the Repatriation Commission for further consideration. Mr. Sharley appealed the AAT’s decision to the Federal Court, challenging the Tribunal's handling of the evidence, its application of relevant legislative criteria, and the adequacy of its reasons.

The central legal issues in the appeal pertained to whether the AAT had erred in its assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence, in its application of the relevant Statement of Principles, and in its provision of reasons for concluding that Mr. Sharley did not suffer from war-caused post-traumatic stress disorder. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the AAT had failed to provide written reasons for its decision on the osteoarthritis claims after the Repatriation Commission affirmed the AAT’s decision. The court had to determine whether the AAT adequately considered the evidence and correctly applied the law, and whether the AAT’s decision was supported by proper reasons.

The Federal Court found that the AAT had not sufficiently addressed whether the evidence before it was adequate to justify its conclusion regarding the post-traumatic stress disorder claim. The Court also held that the AAT had not applied the relevant Statement of Principles correctly. Furthermore, the Court determined that the AAT had not provided adequate reasons for its conclusion that Mr. Sharley did not suffer from war-caused post-traumatic stress disorder. However, the Court did not find fault with the AAT’s handling of the osteoarthritis claims, except for the failure to provide written reasons after the Repatriation Commission affirmed the AAT’s decision. The Court concluded that the matter should be remitted to the AAT for reconsideration of the osteoarthritis claims, while dismissing the appeal in all other respects.

The Court ordered that the claims relating to osteoarthritis be remitted to the AAT for determination in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions. The Court also mandated a specific timetable for the parties to file and serve written submissions regarding the costs associated with the appeal. This decision ensures that the AAT will have the opportunity to properly consider the evidence and apply the correct legal criteria in making its determinations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. With respect to so much of the applicant’s claims under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) as relate to osteoarthritis of the knees, the case be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for those claims to be determined conformably with s 42D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

2. The application otherwise be dismissed.

3. The parties file and serve written submissions as to costs in accordance with the following timetable:

(a) The applicant, within 14 days;

(b) The respondent, within a further 14 days;

(c) The applicant in reply, if necessary, within a further 7 days.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.