Trotter and Repatriation Commission - [2003] AATA 766

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 766
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A2001/533

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re Michael Trotter

Applicant

And

Repatriation Commission

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr G A Mowbray
Date24 July 2003
PlaceCanberra

Decision
For reasons given orally the Tribunal affirms the Commission's decision of 7 May 1998 which was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board on 24 August 2001.

..................[signed]....................
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS - alcohol abuse or alcohol dependency - whether inability to obtain appropriate clinical management
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss 70, 120, 120B
Deledio v Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 261; 25 AAR 396
Repatriation Commission v Gorton (2001) 110 FCR 321; 33 AAR 370
Brew v Repatriation Commission (1999) 94 FCR 80; 30 AAR 63
Repatriation Commission v Wedekind [2000] FCA 649
REASONS FOR DECISION

7 August 2003 Mr G A Mowbray

History of the Application
1.       On 7 January 1998 Michael Trotter lodged a claim to have alcohol dependence accepted as a service related disability. On 7 May 1998 the Repatriation Commission refused Mr Trotter's claim for what it described as "psychoactive substance abuse or dependence". This forms the reviewable decision.
2.       On 14 August 1998 an application for review of the Commission's decision was received by the Veterans' Review Board which, on 24 August 2001, affirmed the decision under review. The Tribunal received an application for review of the Commission's decision as affirmed by the Board on 13 December 2001.
3.       The application was heard on 14-15 July 2003. Mr Trotter was represented by Mr Paul Crabb of Capital Lawyers and the Repatriation Commission was represented by Ms Jayne Jagot of counsel. Oral reasons for decision were given on 24 July 2003 affirming the decision under review. On 28 July 2003 the Tribunal received a request from the Commission’s solicitor for written reasons for the decision representative pursuant to 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. A like request was received from Mr Trotter’s solicitor on 29 July 2003. Accordingly these written reasons have been prepared based on the oral reasons with appropriate editing.
Background
4.       Mr Trotter was born on 26 July 1967. He served with the Royal Australian Navy from 17 January 1986 to his discharge on 25 May 1998. This service is defined as “defence service” for the purpose of entitlements under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”). At the date of enlistment Mr Trotter was 18 years old and at the date of discharge 30 years old.
5.       At the commencement of his defence service and for the first three years Mr Trotter was a cadet at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) in Canberra studying for a Bachelor of Arts degree. He graduated with this degree on 10 December 1988.
6.       On or about 27 November 1997, the Board of Final Medical Survey recommended that Mr Trotter be discharged as "Medically Unfit for Naval Service" based on his condition of "alcoholism".
Issue
7.       On…

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 Trotter and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Trotter and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 766
Case: [2003] AATA 766
Decision Date: 24 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Trotter and the Repatriation Commission, the Federal Court of Australia was called upon to determine whether the Commission had failed to provide the appellant with appropriate clinical management for his alcohol dependency. The appellant contended that the Commission was negligent in not recognising his alcohol dependency and in failing to provide him with necessary treatment. The matter was heard at first instance and on appeal, with the Tribunal affirming the Commission's decision to deny the appellant's claim for compensation.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of sections 70, 120, and 120B of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The appellant argued that the Commission's failure to provide appropriate clinical management for his alcohol dependency constituted a breach of its statutory obligations. Conversely, the Commission asserted that it had fulfilled its duties under the Act by providing the appellant with various forms of treatment and support. The court had to examine whether the Commission's actions met the statutory requirements and whether the appellant's entitlement to compensation was validly denied.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and previous case law, including Deledio v Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Commission v Gorton, Brew v Repatriation Commission, and Repatriation Commission v Wedekind. The court found that the Commission had provided the appellant with appropriate clinical management for his alcohol dependency, in line with the statutory obligations. The appellant's claim for compensation was dismissed as the Commission had fulfilled its duties under the Act. The court also considered the appellant's arguments regarding the Commission's failure to recognise his alcohol dependency and found that the Commission's actions were not negligent.

The Tribunal affirmed the Commission's decision, finding that the appellant's claim for compensation was properly denied. The court concluded that the Commission had provided the appellant with appropriate clinical management for his alcohol dependency, in accordance with the statutory requirements. The appellant's entitlement to compensation was dismissed as the Commission had fulfilled its obligations under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.

Orders

Orders of the court

For reasons given orally the Tribunal affirms the Commission's decision of 7 May 1998 which was affirmed by the Veterans' Review Board on 24 August 2001.

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.