The High Court quashed a Medical Board decision that upheld a Naval Service member’s medical grade, which had made him ineligible to extend his service. Mr Justice Noonan held that the board had to classify him based on the evidence and circumstances when it considered his appeal, rather than assess only whether an earlier decision was correct.
The applicant, Alan Bennett, enlisted in the Naval Service in 1999. When his 12-year service period ended in December 2011, he applied to extend it by nine years. A medical examination by Commander Murphy on 24 January 2012 resulted in a constitution grade 2. The judgment states that a grade below 1 made an applicant ineligible for re-engagement.
Commander Murphy reported no abnormality on clinical examination. He said the applicant’s history of sick leave and excused duty showed a higher than average need for medical attention, so he could not certify him as healthy and awarded grade 2. The Medical Board upheld that classification on 23 August 2012 after a paper review; the applicant said he was not clinically examined. The board’s decision was communicated as final under the applicable Defence Force Regulations.
The applicant argued that grade 2 required a minor impairment or disability, which he did not have, and that the board should have considered later events and examined him. The respondents said medical history could properly inform an assessment of health and future care needs. The judge accepted that medical history can be relevant, but found that the applicant’s unrelated absences did not establish a recurring illness or a specific constitutional weakness.
The judgment also noted that the respondents could not identify a minor impairment or disability that supported grade 2. It found difficulty with the reliance on a sick-leave average that used different periods and populations for comparison, and observed that the original conclusion was not connected to the clinical examination.
Under the regulations, the board’s task was to classify or reclassify the member, not simply decide whether an earlier grading was correct at the time it was made. The court found that the board had failed to assess the applicant as he presented to it and had acted beyond its jurisdiction in upholding the original decision for the same reasons.
The judge could not resolve disputed affidavit evidence about whether the applicant had been told the board would review its decision in January 2013. However, he said that if the judicial review application was out of time, he would extend the time. The court ordered certiorari quashing the board’s decision of 23 August 2012 and, if necessary, the decision of 14 January 2013. The judgment does not state that the applicant was granted an extension of service.