Starr and Repatriation Commission

Case [2003] AATA 1247


Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 1247

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No N2001/1173

VETERANS' AFFAIRS  DIVISION )
Re JOAN STARR

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member

Date11 December 2003

PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is set aside.  In its place the Tribunal decides that Mr Phillips’ death was war-caused and Ms Starr is entitled to a War Widow’s Pension.  The matter is remitted to the Repatriation Commission to determine the correct pension that is payable in accordance with these reasons.

[Sgd] Mr S. Webb, Member


Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL  )
  )     No   N2001/1173

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION     )

ReJOAN STARR

Applicant

AndREPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

ORDER TO AMEND WRITTEN DECISION [2003] AATA 1247

TribunalMr S Webb, Member

Date4 February 2004

PlaceSydney

WHEREAS:

1.the Tribunal released a written decision in this matter, dated 11 December 2003; and

2.it has come to the Tribunal’s attention that there was a typing error in the decision;

3.the Tribunal wishes to amend the written decision so as to rectify the error and wishing to do so with the least cost and inconvenience to the parties, applies the provision of section 43AA of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

NOW THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE ORDERS that paragraph 61 of the decision reads as follows: 

“This being the case, I find that the late veteran's death was war-caused and Ms Starr is entitled to a Widow's Pension payable from 3 months prior to the date of claim, ie. 24 April 2000 (s.20).”

[Sgd]   Mr S Webb

Member           

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - widow pension - marriage-like relationship - death of veteran - WWII operational service - reasonable hypothesis - ischaemic heart disease, dyslipidaemia, alcohol consumption - Statement of Principles concerning Ischaemic Heart Disease - no Statement of Principles concerning dyslipidaemia - material pointing to alcohol consumption caused by service - decision set aside

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 sections 5E, 6A, 8, 9, 11A, 13, 14, 119, 120, 120A, 196B

Repatriation Medical Authority Statement of Principles 53 of 2003 for Ischaemic Heart Disease

Repatriation Commission v Delidio (1998) 83 FCR 82

McKenna v Repatriation Commission (1999) 86 FCR 144

Byrnes v Repatriation Commission (1993) 177 CLR 564

Repatriation Commission v Hancock [2003] FCA 710

Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408

Gosewinckel v Repatriation Commission (1999) 59 ALD 690

Connors v Repatriation Commission (2000) 59 ALD 61

Elliott v Repatriation Commission (2002) 73 ALD 377

Cornelius v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 750

Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 79 FCR 364

Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160

Hughes v Repatriation Commission (1990) 13 AAR 34

Bull v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCR 823

REASONS FOR DECISION

11 December 2003 Mr S. Webb, Member        

1.      On 9 October 1999 Mr David Phillips (“the late veteran”) died (T4, f23).   On 24 July 2000 Ms Joan Starr, his defacto wife, lodged a claim for a War Widow’s Pension (T4).  The Repatriation Commission rejected her claim on…

Continue reading Starr and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Starr and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 1247
Case
[2003] AATA 1247
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Ms Starr, sought a pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 following the death of her husband, Mr Phillips, who had served in the Second World War. Ms Starr contended that Mr Phillips' death was caused by conditions attributable to his service, specifically ischaemic heart disease and dyslipidaemia, exacerbated by his alcohol consumption during service. The Repatriation Commission found that Mr Phillips' death was not war-caused, and therefore, Ms Starr was not entitled to a War Widow's Pension. The matter came before the court on review of the Commission's decision.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Repatriation Commission was correct in finding that Mr Phillips' death was not caused by his service and, if not, whether Ms Starr was entitled to a War Widow's Pension. The court had to consider the evidence of ischaemic heart disease, dyslipidaemia, and alcohol consumption in light of the relevant legislative provisions and the Statement of Principles for Ischaemic Heart Disease. The court needed to determine if the evidence pointed to the conditions being reasonably attributable to Mr Phillips' service.

The court found that the Repatriation Commission's decision was flawed. The evidence presented a reasonable hypothesis that Mr Phillips' ischaemic heart disease and dyslipidaemia were caused by his service, and there was material pointing to his alcohol consumption during service. The court held that the Commission had not properly considered the evidence and the applicable legal principles, particularly in relation to the connection between the conditions and Mr Phillips' service. The court set aside the Commission's decision and held that Mr Phillips' death was war-caused, entitling Ms Starr to a War Widow's Pension. The matter was remitted to the Repatriation Commission to determine the correct pension payable.

The court's orders were that the decision under review be set aside, and in its place, the Tribunal decided that Mr Phillips’ death was war-caused and Ms Starr was entitled to a War Widow’s Pension. The matter was remitted to the Repatriation Commission to determine the correct pension that is payable in accordance with these reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside. In its place the Tribunal decides that Mr Phillips’ death was war-caused and Ms Starr is entitled to a War Widow’s Pension. The matter is remitted to the Repatriation Commission to determine the correct pension that is payable in accordance with these reasons.

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.