Case: Byrnes v Repatriation Commission [1993] HCA 51 ; (1993) 177 CLR 564 
Outcome: cited
Mrs Byrne relevantly posited to the Tribunal that her husband's ability to survive in the waters of Tantangara Dam when his boat overturned was impaired by war-caused CAD. The Tribunal accepted that hypothesis to be reasonable (at [89]). By s 120(1) of the Act, the applicant's claim was then required to succeed unless: &#8226; one or more of the facts necessary to support that hypothesis were disproved beyond reasonable doubt; or &#8226; the truth of another fact in the material, inconsistent with the hypothesis, was proved beyond reasonable doubt, thus disproving, beyond reasonable doubt, the accepted hypothesis. ( Byrnes v Repatriation Commission [1993] HCA 51 ; (1993) 177 CLR 564 at 571; Repatriation Commission v Deledio (1998) 83 FCR 82 at 91). 6 Mrs Byrne submits that, as a matter of construction, the Tribunal's satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt only applied to his death by drowning and that the Tribunal failed to apply the test as enunciated in Byrnes to the contribution of, relevantly, CAD to the death. 7 That submission is rejected. The Tribunal had already determined that the kind of death was drowning (at [57]). That was not in issue. It is clear that the Tribunal understood that the question for determination was whether it was satisfied that the hypothesis that CAD had contributed to his death had been disproved beyond reasonable doubt. The Tribunal set out the test as enunciated in Byrnes at [90]. In that context and as a matter of construction, the requisite satisfaction expressed at [93] of the Tribunal's decision related directly to the contribution of CAD. 8 The first and primary ground of appeal is that the Tribunal failed to refer to the evidence or other material that was the basis for its finding that CAD did not contribute to Mr Byrne's death. Mrs Byrne submits that the Tribunal gave no reasons or no sufficient reasons for that conclusion as required by s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). 9 It is necessary to have some understanding of the context of the Tribunal's conclusion and the structure of the Tribunal's decision. The Tribunal considered the whole of the evidence before it, then gave its reasons and consideration under consecutive headings. 15 The Tribunal acknowledged (at [90]) that, having found a reasonable hypothesis, Mrs Byrne's claim would succeed unless the hypothesis was disproved beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with the principles enunciated in Byrnes at 571 and noted in the Tribunal's decision. It then stated at [91]: 'Having considered all the evidence, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Byrne's death did not arise out of and was not attributable to a cardiac event of a kind described by Associate Professor Richards, Dr Craig, Dr Freeman or Dr Burn, that is, a cardiac event that was a consequence of IHD or CAD.' That was the evidence considered in detail under the heading "consideration of the kind of death". 16 The Tribunal expanded on that conclusion with respect to IHD at [92] and, at [93] said: 'The opinions relating death to IHD and CAD were based essentially on there being no water in Mr Byrne's lungs and his "inability" to save himself. Those opinions concluded that death was caused by such a cardiac event rather than by drowning. On the evidence, we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr Byrne drowned, and that neither IHD nor CAD contributed to his death.' '[T] he evidence ', as referred to in that paragraph, clearly refers back to the detailed discussion of the evidence earlier in the Tribunal's reasons. It was that evidence which disproved the hypothesis that Mr Byrne's ability to survive in the water was impaired by war-caused CAD. 17 There was detailed consideration of the evidence in the Tribunal's reasons. The Tribunal cited that evidence as the basis for its conclusion. The reasons explain how and why the Tribunal came to its conclusion. It rejected the premises on which the hypothesis of CAD as a cause of death was based. Once those premises were rejected, the hypothesis that CAD impaired Mr Byrne's ability to survive once in the water could not stand. In context, it cannot be said that the Tribunal failed to give reasons for its satisfaction, beyond reasonable doubt, that the cause of death was drowning, to which CAD made no contribution.