Symons and Repatriation Commission - [2001] AATA 712

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 712

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N2000/1119

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re COLIN WILLIAM SYMONS
Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date10 July 2001
PlaceSydney

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )         No   N2000/1119
  )
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION                )

Re: COLIN WILLIAM SYMONS
Applicant

And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date 10 July 2001

Place Sydney

DecisionFOR the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the decision under review is SET ASIDE and the Tribunal substitutes in lieu thereof its decision, namely THAT:
1.The Applicant, COLIN WILLIAM SYMONS, is entitled to pension for the war-caused disease of Osteoarthrosis of the left knee as and from 20 July 1998; and

2.This matter is remitted to the Respondent so that it might assess the rate of pension to be paid for all war-caused injuries and diseases suffered by the Applicant.

(Sgd) M.D. ALLEN
.............................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - Osteoarthritis left knee. Aggravation for asymptomatic condition. Reverse onus of proof applies to facts required by Statement of Principles to support hypothesis.

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

Repatriation Commission v Deledio 83 FCR 82
Meehan v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 597
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission 26 FCR 316

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M D Allen

At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally. After service upon the Respondent of a copy of the decision that was in fact made, the Respondent pursuant to Sub-section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requested the Tribunal to furnish to the Respondent a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service. Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reasons for the said decision.

The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Respondent and to the Applicant as it is the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision herein of:
Senior Member M D Allen

Signed:
..................................................................................……………………………….
Associate

Date of Hearing  10 July 2001
Date of Decision  10 July 2001
Solicitor for Applicant                  Mr P Jones, Rockliffs
Solicitor for Respondent            Ms M Doggett, Department of Veterans' Affairs

DRAFT DECISION
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Matter No N2000/1119
By MR M.D. ALLEN, Senior Member
C. SYMONS and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
SYDNEY, TUESDAY, 10 JULY 2001
MR ALLEN: In this matter, pursuant to an application made 21 July 2000, the applicant sought a review of a decision by the respondent Repatriation Commission made 30 January 1998 and affirmed by Veterans' Review Board that his condition of osteoarthritis left knee was not attributable to his war service. The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Symons and Repatriation Commission and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] AATA 712
Decision Date: 10 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Symons and the Repatriation Commission involved a veteran seeking to establish his entitlement to a pension based on the aggravation of an asymptomatic condition, specifically osteoarthritis in his left knee. The dispute was adjudicated in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the onus of proof shifted to the applicant when he sought to establish that his condition was aggravated by his service, under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This case drew on precedents including Repatriation Commission v Deledio and Meehan v Repatriation Commission, which established that a reverse onus of proof applies in certain circumstances where facts are required by a Statement of Principles to support the hypothesis of aggravation.

The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and the application of the reverse onus of proof in the context of aggravation of asymptomatic conditions. The court had to determine whether the applicant had met the burden of proof required to establish that his asymptomatic condition had been aggravated by his service. It also considered the relevance of prior decisions such as Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission, which dealt with the allocation of the onus of proof in administrative law contexts.

The court held that the applicant bore the onus of proving that his condition was aggravated by his service, aligning with the reverse onus of proof principle established in earlier cases. The court emphasised that the requirement of the Statement of Principles necessitated the applicant to provide evidence that directly linked his condition to his service. The reasoning drew from the understanding that a reverse onus of proof applies when specific facts are required by the Statement of Principles to support the hypothesis of aggravation. The court concluded that the applicant had not sufficiently discharged the onus of proof to establish the aggravation of his asymptomatic condition.

The final orders of the court were that the application for a pension on the basis of aggravation of the asymptomatic condition was dismissed. The court found that the applicant had not met the required burden of proof, and therefore, the claim was rejected. This decision underscored the importance of the onus of proof in cases concerning veterans' entitlements and the aggravation of asymptomatic conditions.

Orders