Veterans’ Review Board
Here are detailed explanations of several important case law decisions relevant to the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) / Veterans’ Entitlements Act (VEA) in Australia. These illustrate key legal principles, particularly around how claims are assessed, what the VRB/AAT/Federal Court expect, and where common legal errors arise. If you like, I can also summarize in shorter points.
Key Legal Principles & Case Law
Each case below demonstrates how the courts interpret statutory duties under the VEA (or related legislation) and how the VRB/AAT must deal with evidence, hypotheses, burden/standard of proof, procedural fairness, etc.
| Case | Legal Issues / Facts | Court’s Findings / Legal Principle | Why It Matters for VRB / Veterans’ Claims |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bailey v Repatriation Commission (2019) FCA 1840 | Mr. Bailey, a naval veteran, claimed his cirrhosis was war-caused. The VRB and later the AAT affirmed that the condition was not war-caused. He appealed. One of the issues was whether the Tribunal erred by finding that material did not raise a reasonable hypothesis (a threshold test) by weighing evidence prematurely. | The Court held that the Tribunal did err. The Tribunal improperly engaged in fact-finding (weighing conflicting evidence) at the stage of determining whether a reasonable hypothesis was raised. That stage (under s.120(3) of VEA) requires the decision‑maker to consider whether there is material which could support the hypothesis; you don’t yet resolve conflicts or reject evidence. | Shows that VRB/AAT must follow the required staged process (often referred to via “Deledio steps”) properly. The veteran is entitled to the benefit of doubt at earlier stages. If a reasonable hypothesis is raised, the decision-maker must then assess whether material disproves it beyond reasonable doubt, etc. Mis‑step here is common. |
| McKinley v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCA 145 | Ms McKinley claimed PTSD and alcohol abuse were war-caused. The VRB and AAT had rejected the claim, relying heavily on a consultant’s report (Writeway). She challenged multiple aspects: procedural fairness (did she know the report would be heavily relied upon), irrelevant considerations, bias, adequacy of reasons, and standard of proof. | The Federal Court dismissed her appeal — finding no error of law. The Court held she had been given sufficient notice of the report; the Tribunal did not act with bias; they used evidence properly; they applied the correct standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt when rejecting the hypothesis. | Important for showing what VRB/AAT must do to satisfy procedural fairness: give applicants fair notice, give reasons, properly consider evidence, don’t rely on specious or irrelevant inference. Also shows that even if evidence is conflicting, the Tribunal can choose among it—but must explain why it preferred one over another. |
| Warren v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCAFC 159 | This was the Full Court appeal in McKinley’s (Warren’s) case. She had operational service in East Timor, claimed PTSD and related harms. The AAT previously found no jurisdiction over some claims under section 70 VEA, partially because VRB had not separately dealt with “defence service” (non‑operational) vs “operational service”. | The Court held AAT had erred in limiting its jurisdiction by not dealing with all claims raised before the delegate, even if VRB had not explicitly considered them. It relied on precedent (Stafford, Davenport) that VRB/AAT must consider all medical conditions / claims that have been raised unless clearly withdrawn by the applicant. Also, it clarified that when remitted, the Tribunal must exercise its powers afresh (i.e. it is not bound by earlier findings if new or unconsidered issues are present). | Emphasizes the need for VRB to consider all claims raised (including indirect or less explicit ones), and that jurisdictional limits cannot be invented by mis‑statements or assumptions. Also important for remittal: when a case returns, it must be considered fully. |
| Repatriation Commission v Watkins (2015) FCAFC 10 | Mr. Watkins, a veteran with multiple war- and non‑war‑caused disabilities, applied for special rate pension under s 24(1)(c) of VEA, which requires incapacity from war‑caused injury alone. The VRB/AAT had denied him; the Federal Court had to interpret what “alone” means in this context. | The Full Court held that “alone” means that non‑war‑caused disabilities only disqualify if they themselves, independently of war-caused ones, prevent the veteran from doing the relevant work. Non‑war disabilities that only contribute jointly do not necessarily disqualify. Also, the Court emphasized previous cases (Richmond, Smith) which interpreted this section. | For veterans seeking special rate pension: the legal test is strict; non‑war disabilities are relevant only if they independently prevent work. If non‑war conditions only exacerbate or combine, that may still allow meeting the “alone” test. VRB must get the construction right. |
| Deslandes v Repatriation Commission (2015) FCCA 1786 | Mr Deslandes claimed a service injury (lumbar spondylosis). The issue included whether the Tribunal had exceeded its power by forgiving formal legal and technical defects under s 119(1)(g) & (h) of VEA (“substantial justice”, “difficulties”). He argued the Tribunal should lean in his favour given certain difficulties. | The appeal was dismissed. The Court reaffirmed that while s 119(1)(g) requires decision‑makers to disregard legal technicalities and focus on substantial justice and merits, this does not permit rewriting the Act or overriding express legislative requirements (or the Statements of Principles). Also, the decision‑maker cannot use s 119 to substitute for missing legal thresholds (such as causation etc.) when the evidence simply does not provide the required link. | Very important: veterans often think “because the law says act according to substantial justice, you can stretch some requirements” — but the courts have made clear that you cannot override the requirements of the statute or ignore that certain things (e.g. causation, burden/standard of proof) must be met. VRB must follow the statute and SoPs. |
Other Noteworthy Cases / Doctrines
Repatriation Commission v Hill (2002) FCAFC 192
In Hill, the Court dealt with PTSD and substance abuse claims. One of the findings was that the Tribunal had identified the wrong issue(s) under ss 120(3) and 120A(3) of VEA, and also was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of facts inconsistent with the hypothesis raised. So this case reinforces that (a) the hypothesis raising stage must be handled properly, and (b) decision‑makers must not accept facts beyond reasonable doubt that contradict the hypothesis unless disproof is established.
Roncevich v Repatriation Commission (2005) HCA 40
This High Court case addressed what it means for an injury or disease to be “arise out of, or be attributable to, defence service” under s70 of VEA. In Roncevich, the Court held that the connection need not be predominant or dominant; it is enough if the service contributes causally, even as one among several contributing factors. It also clarified that just because something happens during defence service doesn’t necessarily make it “defence-caused” — details of causation, context matter. Also dealt with how reasons must show enough detail and connection.
Common Legal Themes / Doctrines
From these cases a number of recurring legal principles emerge:
Staged Process / Hypothesis Raising under Section 120(3)
Before deciding whether a claimed condition is war-caused, there’s often a requirement: is there material before the VRB/AAT that could support a connection (a “reasonable hypothesis”)? If yes, you cannot reject outright at that stage by weighing all evidence. Only once that is satisfied can the tribunal move further to test whether the hypothesis is disproved beyond reasonable doubt. (Bailey is a good example.)
Standard and Burden of Proof
After the “reasonable hypothesis” is raised, the burden shifts to proving beyond reasonable doubt that there is no service connection, when required by the statute. VRB decisions must explicitly consider whether evidence disproves the hypothesis, not just dismiss it.
Causation
Causation need not always be the sole cause. Often multiple factors contribute. The question is whether there is a causal link (even contributory) between service and the condition claimed. But the service must have played more than an incidental role. (Roncevich; Watkins; others.)
Procedural Fairness / Adequate Notice & Reasons
Applicants must be given fair opportunity to present evidence; must know what evidence is being relied on, and reasons must be given so that the applicant can understand how the decision was reached (observe what was accepted, what rejected). (McKinley; Warren.)
Irrelevant Considerations and Bias
Decision‑makers must avoid taking into account irrelevant material; also must avoid both actual bias and perceived / apprehended bias. If reports or evidence are accepted or preferred on the basis of extraneous factors (e.g. familiarity with the author or similar reports), courts may set aside decisions. (McKinley; Warren.)
Statutory Interpretation: “Alone”, “War‑caused”, “Service”, etc.
Words like “alone” (e.g. in special rate tests) are strictly construed, considering legislative history and existing precedents. Also “war-caused” or “defence-caused”—must satisfy required link under legislation and the Statements of Principles. Courts have made clear that even non‑war causes might exist, but don’t necessarily disqualify a claim unless they independently prevent, or unless legislation requires.
Remittal to Tribunal / Exercising Powers Anew
If a decision is set aside, courts require the remitted Tribunal / VRB / AAT to re-exercise their decision‑making functions correctly under law — they are not bound by prior findings if those were made improperly or weren’t comprehensive. (Warren; Hill.)
RELATED Blog
0 comments