FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Renton v Repatriation Commission (No 2) [2009] FCA 792 DONALD KEITH RENTON v REPATRIATION COMMISSION QUD 280 of 2007 DOWSETT J 30 JULY 2009 BRISBANE IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION QUD 280 of 2007 BETWEEN: DONALD KEITH RENTON Applicant AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE OF ORDER: 30 JULY 2009 WHERE MADE: BRISBANE THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the appeal be dismissed; and 2. there be no order as to costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION QUD 280 of 2007 BETWEEN: DONALD KEITH RENTON Applicant AND: REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent JUDGE: DOWSETT J DATE: 30 JULY 2009 PLACE: BRISBANE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 I delivered judgment in this matter on 27 March 2009. At that time I asked the parties to make submissions as to appropriate orders. These submissions were, understandably, not received until early April, by which time I had gone on leave for two months. Since my return, other matters have, until now, prevented me from disposing of all outstanding issues. 2 The applicant claimed a disability pension, alleging that he suffered from a war-caused anxiety disorder and war-caused alcohol dependence. The Veterans' Review Board upheld his claim concerning the anxiety disorder but concluded that his alcohol dependence was not war-caused. In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the "AAT") he argued that his alcohol dependence was either war-caused or aggravated by his war service. The AAT found that the onset of his alcohol dependence pre-dated his war service, and that there was no evidence of aggravation. 3 I identified certain errors in the reasoning of the Tribunal, indicated my intention to allow the appeal, and invited the parties to make submissions as to appropriate orders. The applicant submits that I should simply allow the appeal, remit the matter to the AAT for further consideration and order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs. The respondent submits that the appeal should be dismissed, and that there should be no order as to costs. 4 Generally, the fact that an error in reasoning has been demonstrated will lead to the matter being remitted for further consideration. However the respondent draws my attention to the findings of fact mentioned above. They are fatal to the applicant's case and not open to challenge on this appeal. Unfortunately, the way in which the matter was conducted tended to conceal this weakness in the applicant's case. 5 In the circumstances the appropriate order pursuant to s 44(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) is that the appeal be dismissed. As the respondent suggests, there will be no order as to costs. I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett. Associate: Dated: 30 July 2009 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms A Frizelle Solicitor for the Applicant: GF Couper Solicitors Counsel for the Respondent: Ms H Bowskill Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Dates of Hearing: 28 July 2008, 27 March 2009 Date of Final Written Submissions: 6 April 2009 Date of Judgment: 30 July 2009