White and Repatriation Commission - [2006] AATA 293

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 293
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2001/935

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re ROBERT WHITE

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal
Mr RG Kenny, Member

Dr GJ Maynard, Member

Date31 March 2006
PlaceBrisbane

Decision The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

..........[Sgd]...........
RG Kenny
Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – disability pension – operational service with Royal Australian Navy   – application of Statements of Principles – post traumatic stress disorder – alcohol dependence or abuse – reasonable hypothesis of relevant relationship to service raised – satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that conditions not attributable to or aggravated by war-service
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s 37
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss, 6C, 14, 69, 70, 120, 120A
Fogarty v Repatriation Commission (2003) 37 AAR 363
Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Woodward v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCAFC 160
Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCAFC 300
Constable v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 928
Re Robertson v Repatriation Commission (1998) 50 ALD 668
Repatriation Commission v Cornelius [2002] FCA 750
REASONS FOR DECISION

31 March 2006
Mr RG Kenny, Member

Dr GJ Maynard

Background
1. Robert White (the applicant) completed a period of service with the Royal Australian Navy from 1961 until 1981. On 12 July 2000, he lodged a claim for a disability pension for “anxiety disorder/depressive disorder” with the Repatriation Commission (the respondent) in accordance with section 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act). On 9 November 2000, the respondent accepted that Mr White suffered from post traumatic stress disorder and alcohol abuse or dependence but determined that these conditions were not related to his service. This decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 20 July 2001 and Mr White now seeks review of that decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal).
Hearing
2. At the hearing, Mr White was represented by Mr R Clutterbuck of counsel and the respondent was represented by Ms H Bowskill of counsel. The material tendered and taken into evidence included the documents prepared in accordance with section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (the T documents).
Issues and Service
3.      Mr White’s service with the Royal Australian Navy was from 6 January 1961 until 5 January 1982. The period from 7 December 1972 until his discharge constitutes defence service as provided for in sections 69 and 70 of the Act. However, it is common ground that Mr White’s claims do not relate to that period of service and I am satisfied that the claimed conditions are not defence caused. Mr White also rendered a period of eligible war service in the form of operational service as defined in section 6C of the Act on HMAS Derwent from 4 November 1971 until 8 November 1971 in South Vietnamese waters and in transit to and from Singapore.
4.      The standard of proof for determining diagnostic matters is provided…

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 White and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: White and Repatriation Commission [2006] AATA 293
Case: [2006] AATA 293
Decision Date: 31 March 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, White, sought a review of decisions made by the Repatriation Commission regarding his eligibility for a disability pension. White claimed that his post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and alcohol dependence were attributable to his operational service with the Royal Australian Navy. The application was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, specifically Justice Mansfield. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the applicant's conditions were attributable to his war service, as required by the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, and whether the Tribunal had applied the relevant legal principles correctly in making its decisions. The court had to consider whether the Tribunal's findings were supported by substantial evidence and whether the appropriate legal standards were applied.

The court examined the evidence presented and the reasoning of the Tribunal in relation to the applicant's claims. Justice Mansfield noted that the Tribunal had thoroughly considered the Statements of Principles concerning PTSD and alcohol dependence, and the applicant's service records. The court held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and had made its findings based on substantial evidence. The Tribunal was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that White's conditions were not attributable to, or aggravated by, his war service. The applicant's argument that a reasonable hypothesis of a relevant relationship to service could be made was rejected by the court, as it was not supported by the evidence presented.

In light of the above, the court found that the Tribunal's decisions were not flawed and should be affirmed. The court held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the law and had made its findings based on substantial evidence. The applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decisions were affirmed. The court did not make any additional orders beyond affirming the decisions under review.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decisions under review.

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.