Rana v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2005] FCA 6

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rana v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2005] FCA 6 RANJIT RANA v MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION COMMISSION No S 95 of 2004 FINN J ADELAIDE 12 JANUARY 2005

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 95 OF 2004

BETWEEN: RANJIT RANA

APPLICANT

AND: MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE OF ORDER: 12 JANUARY 2005

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed; and 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 95 OF 2004

BETWEEN: RANJIT RANA

APPLICANT

AND: MILITARY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION COMMISSION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 12 JANUARY 2005

PLACE: ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This "appeal" under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("the AAT Act") is the culmination of three successive applications made by Mr Rana in 1984, 1998 and 2001 under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the SRC Act") or its 1971 predecessor in which he sought rehabilitation and/or compensation in respect of injuries he claimed were suffered during or in consequence of his service in the Australian Army. 2 Mr Rana's 2001 application was limited by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") for jurisdictional reasons to a claim for compensation in relation to the conditions of psychotic paranoia reaction (the relevant condition being paranoid psychosis) and of post-traumatic stress disorder ("PTSD"). The Tribunal found Mr Rana was not entitled to the compensation sought. It is from that decision that he appeals. 3 I should note by way of background that in this appeal, as in other applications he has made to this Court, Mr Rana has prosecuted his own case. As I will later indicate, the manner in which he has done this has obscured the legal character he attributes to, and that ought properly be attributed to, the complaints he makes about the Tribunal's decision: cf Neil v Nott (1994) 121 ALR 148 at 150. It is clear that he is disappointed by the Tribunal's decision and he disapproves of its reasoning and findings. His extensive submissions and voluminous documentation betray this. Nonetheless, I have been unable at the end of the day to discern in what Mr Rana alleges any question of law which should in the circumstances be decided in his favour. His claims, in the main, do not rise above what are in substance challenges to the merits of individual findings and conclusions notwithstanding that the language in which those challenges are cast often reflects well-known grounds of judicial review. I need only reiterate that any court reviewing a decision of the Tribunal cannot turn "a review of the reasons of the decision-maker upon proper principles into a reconsideration of the merits of the decision": Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272.