Guy v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 562

Guy v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 562

The Tribunal made reviewable error because, after accepting that the appellant experienced the boiler room incident, perceived a risk of serious injury or death, and was confronted with an event that might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror, it nevertheless concluded there was no severe stressor by treating the incident as only an anxious moment and focusing on the fact that the appellant removed himself from danger. That applied the wrong test by asking whether the incident did evoke the relevant emotions rather than whether it might or could possibly evoke them.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (veterans' Division) Concerning Refusal of a Disability Pension Claim / Federal Court Appeal From Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision set aside; matter remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; respondent to pay appellant's costs.
Legal Topics
['disability Pension' 'war Caused Disease' 'alcohol Dependence or Alcohol Abuse' 'severe Stressor' 'statement of Principles' 'error of Law on Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal']
["veterans' Entitlements" 'administrative Law'] ['disability Pension' 'war Caused Disease' 'alcohol Dependence or Alcohol Abuse' 'severe Stressor' 'statement of Principles' 'error of Law on Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (veterans' Division) Concerning Refusal of a Disability Pension Claim / Federal Court Appeal From Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal erred in finding that the appellant had not experienced a severe stressor within the relevant Statement of Principles.' 'Whether the Tribunal applied the wrong test by asking whether the boiler incident actually evoked intense fear, helplessness or horror rather than whether it might or could possibly evoke those emotions.' "Whether the appellant's perceived risk of serious injury or death during the boiler room incident satisfied the definition of experiencing a severe stressor."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal made reviewable error because, after accepting that the appellant experienced the boiler room incident, perceived a risk of serious injury or death, and was confronted with an event that might evoke intense fear, helplessness or horror, it nevertheless concluded there was no severe stressor by treating the incident as only an anxious moment and focusing on the fact that the appellant removed himself from danger. That applied the wrong test by asking whether the incident did evoke the relevant emotions rather than whether it might or could possibly evoke them.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Tribunal decision set aside; matter remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; respondent to pay appellant's costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is set aside.' 'The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for consideration in accordance with law.' "The respondents are to pay the appellant's costs of this application."]