Sleep v Repatriation Commission

Sleep v Repatriation Commission concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia regarding the appellant's claim for a pension under the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1984* (Cth) (the Act). The appellant sought a pension for a condition he alleged arose out of or was aggravated by his service in the Australian Regular Army. The primary dispute revolved around whether the appellant's condition was one for which the Repatriation Commission was liable to pay pension.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the proper interpretation and application of section 120 of the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1984* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the appellant bore the onus of proving that his condition was one for which the Commission was liable to pay pension, or whether the onus lay on the Commission to prove that it was not. This question arose in the context of the appellant's assertion that his condition was a "disease" within the meaning of the Act.

In their joint judgment, Hayne and Heydon JJ held that section 120 of the Act imposed an onus on the claimant to prove that the condition for which a pension is sought is one for which the Commission is liable to pay pension. Their Honours reasoned that the structure of the Act, particularly the provisions relating to the determination of claims, indicated that the claimant must establish the necessary factual basis for their claim. The court rejected the argument that the Commission bore the onus of disproving the claim once a connection to service was asserted, finding that the statutory scheme required the claimant to affirmatively demonstrate entitlement.

The High Court therefore dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Full Federal Court.