Wright and Repatriation Commission - [2000] AATA 714

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 714

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N1999/622

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re MARK HAMLYN WRIGHT
Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen Dr j r Vallentine, Member

Date21 July 2000
PlaceSydney

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )         No   N1999/622
  )
veterans' appeals DIVISION  )

Re: MARK HAMLYN WRIGHT
Applicant

And: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen
Dr J R Vallentine, Member

Date 21 July 2000

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 the Applicant, Mark Wright, is entitled to pension, pursuant to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, for the Defence-caused diseases of scoliosis, thoracic spondylosis and lumbar spondylosis as and from the 17 day of December 1975;

AND THAT this matter is remitted to the Respondent in order that it might assess the rate of pension to be paid for all Defence-caused injuries and diseases suffered by the Applicant.

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

VETERANS' ENTITLEMENTS - Whether congenital condition made worse by Naval Service. Inferences to be drawn from sequence of events. Enlisted with condition unobservable and asymptomatic. Later during service condition both observable and symptomatic.
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986

Repatriation Commission v Smith (M J) 15 FCR 327
Repatriation Commission v Keeley [2000] FCA 532
Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission 86 ALR 399
Adelaide Stevedoring Company and Forst 64 CLR 538
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission 26 FCR 31
Repatriation Commission v Law 36 ALR 411
Walsh v Rother District Council (1978) 1 All ER 510

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M D Allen
Dr J R Vallentine, Member

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: Kwai-Ling Wong
....................................................................................
Associate

Date of Hearing  21 July 2000
Date of Decision  21 July 2000
Solicitor for Applicant                  Mr T McCombe, Vietnam Veterans' Association
Advocate for Respondent          Ms M Doggett, Department of Veterans' Affairs
DRAFT DECISION

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 Wright and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Wright and Repatriation Commission [2000] AATA 714
Case: [2000] AATA 714
Decision Date: 21 July 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the Repatriation Commission and the veteran, Smith, was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. Smith, a former naval serviceman, sought compensation for a congenital condition that became observable and symptomatic during his service. The central issue was whether the condition was exacerbated by his naval service. The court had to decide if the sequence of events, including the progression of the condition, allowed for an inference that it was worsened by his service.

The legal issues at hand were primarily about drawing inferences from the sequence of events and understanding the nature of the veteran's condition. The court needed to assess whether the condition, which was unobservable and asymptomatic at the time of enlistment, was worsened by his service, thus making it eligible for compensation under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The court also had to consider the relevance of case law precedents, such as Repatriation Commission v Smith (M J) and Repatriation Commission v Keeley, in making its decision.

In delivering the judgment, the court carefully examined the evidence and the relevant legal principles. It noted that the condition, while present at enlistment, became observable and symptomatic during service, which was a significant factor. The court drew upon the principle that where a condition is unobservable and asymptomatic at enlistment but becomes observable and symptomatic during service, it can be inferred that the service may have exacerbated the condition. The court found that the veteran's condition met the criteria for compensation under the Act. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of Smith, finding that his condition was indeed worsened by his naval service.

The final orders of the court granted Smith compensation for the worsening of his congenital condition due to his service. The decision underscored the importance of the sequence of events and the progression of the condition in making such determinations. This ruling adds to the body of case law, providing guidance for similar future cases concerning veterans' entitlements.

Orders