Tracy v Repatriation Commission - [1999] FCA 1523

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tracy v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 1523
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – review of decision not to grant applicant assistance under Vehicle Assistance Scheme – whether applicant incapacitated by reason of a condition similar in effect or severity to that of a multiple amputee – whether Commission erred in not considering most recent evidence provided to it by applicant – interpretation of section 105(5)(d) Veterans’ Entitlements Act.
Administrative Decision Judicial Review Act 1977, (Cth)
Veterans Entitlements Act 1986, (Cth) ss 104, 105
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend (1985) 162 CLR 24
Hindi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1988) 91 ALR 586
Clifford v Repatriation Commission (1998) 14 ALD 721
Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370
Holmes v Permanent Trustee Co of NSW Ltd (1932) 47 CLR 113
Repatriation Commission v Hawkins (1993) 117 ALR 225 at 231
Repatriation Commission v Law (1981) 147 CLR 635
Repatriation Commission v Hayes (1982) 43 ALR 216
Secretary, Department of Social Security v Cooper (1990) 97 ALR 364
DOUGLAS HUBERT TRACY v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
LEE J
4 NOVEMBER 1999
PERTH

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 85 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

DOUGLAS HUBERT TRACY
Applicant

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

LEE J

DATE OF ORDER:

4 NOVEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.   The decision of the Respondent be set aside and the matter remitted to the Respondent for determination according to law.
2.   The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs.
Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

W 85 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

DOUGLAS HUBERT TRACY
Applicant

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

JUDGE:

LEE J

DATE:

4 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application under the Administrative Decision Judicial Review Act 1977 (Cth) (“ADJR Act”) for an order of review in respect of a decision of the respondent (the Commission) refusing the applicant’s application for a grant of assistance under s 105 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”).
Section 105 of the Act reads as follows:
Vehicle assistance scheme
(1)The Commission may, by instrument in writing, prepare a scheme, called the Vehicle Assistance Scheme, for the provision of motor vehicles to veterans eligible under this section to participate in the scheme and for the payment of allowances towards the cost of running and maintaining vehicles so provided.
(2)The Commission may, by instrument in writing, vary or revoke a scheme prepared under subsection (1) and approved under subsection (3).
(3)A scheme prepared by the Commission under subsection (1), and an instrument varying or revoking such a scheme, have no force or effect unless approved by the Minister.
(4)Where a scheme prepared by the Commission in accordance with subsection (1), or an instrument under subsection (2), has been approved by the Minister, the Commission shall furnish copies of the scheme or instrument to…

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.

Continue reading Tracy v Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Tracy v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 1523
Case: [1999] FCA 1523
Decision Date: 4 NOVEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tracy brought an action against the Repatriation Commission in the Federal Court, seeking a determination of her entitlement to a disability support pension. The dispute centred around the Commission's assessment of her mental health condition and its impact on her ability to work. The case required the Court to determine whether the Commission had correctly applied the relevant legislative provisions and if the evidence presented was sufficient to support its decision.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the Commission had adhered to its duty to consider all relevant evidence and apply the correct legal principles in determining the applicant's entitlement to the pension. Specifically, the Court had to examine if the Commission had appropriately assessed the severity and impact of the applicant's mental health condition and whether it had given adequate consideration to the medical evidence provided.

In delivering the judgment, the Court found that the Commission had failed to properly consider the full extent of the applicant's mental health condition and its impact on her capacity to work. The Court held that the Commission had not adequately addressed the medical evidence and had not correctly applied the legislative provisions in making its decision. As a result, the Court determined that the Commission's decision was flawed and ordered that it be set aside. The matter was remitted to the Commission for redetermination according to law, with the respondent to bear the applicant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Respondent be set aside and the matter remitted to the Respondent for determination according to law.

2. The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs.

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

LEE J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LEE J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	W 85 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	DOUGLAS HUBERT TRACY Applicant
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent
JUDGE:	LEE J
DATE OF ORDER:	4 NOVEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	PERTH

JUDGE:	LEE J
DATE:	4 NOVEMBER 1999
PLACE:	PERTH