Beale and Repatriation Commission
[2010] AATA 874
•9 November 2010
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 874
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2009/4132
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re DONALD BEALE Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, MemberDate9 November 2010
PlaceSydney
DecisionThe Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...................[sgd]..................
Ms G Ettinger,
Presiding Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlement – Disability Pension - Operational Service – Claim for Special Rate Pension – Retirement found not to be due to accepted war-caused conditions alone – Veteran not genuinely seeking work - Decision under review affirmed
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986, s 24
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1
Fox v Repatriation Commission (1997) 45 ALD 317
Leane v Repatriation Commission (2004) 81 ALD 625
REASONS FOR DECISION
9 November 2010 Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member
SUMMARY
1. Mr Donald Beale, the Applicant in these proceedings is 64 years old. He served on operational service with the Engineers 1st Field Squadron from 1968 - 1969, and was a “tunnel rat”, a very stressful job during the Vietnam war, in which he confronted the enemy. He was discharged from the Australian Army in 1970, and commenced work as a driver of public buses in Canberra immediately afterwards. He later drove Comcars from 1973 to 1989. These transported politicians to and from their engagements by day and by night.
2. Mr Beale has a number of accepted war-caused disabilities, including, relevantly, post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol dependence, depressive disorder and cardiomyopathy.
3. Mr Beale has been involved in three motor vehicle accidents, two in the course of his duties in 1986, and one involving his private motor vehicle, in 1987. Mr Beale’s last remunerative work was in approximately 1989/90. He was retired with neck and back injuries resulting from the motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), in 1986 and 1987.He receives the disability pension at 100 percent of the General Rate, workers’ compensation payments in relation to his neck and back injuries, and is appealing the decision of the Veterans Review Board to refuse him pension at the Special Rate.
4. We decided that because Mr Beale’s retirement from remunerative work was not due to his accepted war-caused injuries alone, his incapacity for driving is not due to his war-caused disabilities alone, and he was not genuinely seeking work, he is not eligible for pension at the Special Rate. Our reasons follow.
ISSUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
5. The issue the Tribunal had to decide was whether Mr Beale is eligible for Special Rate of pension pursuant to section 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act1986 (“the Act”).
LEGISLATION
6. Section 24 of the Act follows as relevant.
24Special rate of pension
(1)This section applies to a veteran if:
(aa)the veteran has made a claim under section 14 for a pension, or an application under section 15 for an increase in the rate of the pension that he or she is receiving; and
(aab)the veteran had not yet turned 65 when the claim or application was made; and
(a)either:
(i)the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, is determined under section 21A to be at least 70% or has been so determined by a determination that is in force; or
(ii)the veteran is, because he or she has suffered or is suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis, receiving or entitled to receive a pension at the general rate; and
(b)the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran’s incapacity from war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and
(c)the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity; and
(d)section 25 does not apply to the veteran.
(2)For the purpose of paragraph (1)(c):
(a)a veteran who is incapacitated from war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both, shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity if:
(i)the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war‑caused injury or war‑caused disease, or both; or
(ii)the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; and
(b)where a veteran, not being a veteran who has attained the age of 65 years, who has not been engaged in remunerative work satisfies the Commission that he or she has been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, that he or she would, but for that incapacity, be continuing so to seek to engage in remunerative work and that that incapacity is the substantial cause of his or her inability to obtain remunerative work in which to engage, the veteran shall be treated as having been prevented by reason of that incapacity from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking.
….
7. The standard of proof in assessment matters is that of reasonable satisfaction pursuant to section 120(4) of the Act.
8. Mr Beale had not yet reached the age of 65 when he applied for Special Rate pension. This requires consideration of section 24(2)(b) of the Act.
BACKGROUND
9. Mr Beale’s accepted war caused disabilities are:
§ Puncture wound right external auditory meatus, date accepted unknown;
§ Sensori-neural deafness, date accepted unknown;
§ PTSD, accepted in 1989;
§ Tension headaches, accepted in 1989;
§ Alcohol dependence, accepted 2007;
§ Depressive disorder, accepted 2007;
§ Otitis Externa, accepted 2008;
§ Cardiomyopathy, accepted 2008;
§ Alcoholic liver disease, accepted 2008.
10. Mr Beale gave evidence before the Tribunal in regard to his time on operational service in Vietnam and his psychiatric illnesses for which he said he had five hospital admissions in 1971, and underwent ECT on nine occasions. Mr Beale also told us about admissions to psychiatric units at Concord Hospital in 1973, and 1975, and other medical problems.
11. It is not in dispute, and we accept that Mr Beale suffered psychiatric illnesses, and that, as recorded in the paragraph above, PTSD, depressive disorder and alcohol dependence have been accepted as war caused disabilities.
12. It is also not in dispute, and we accept that Mr Beale worked driving Comcars from 1973 to 1989 with a gap in 1977. He described his work conditions which were difficult, being long hours, and short nights. Mr Beale gave evidence that in order to sleep he self-medicated with alcohol, specifically whiskey with milk, and sleeping tablets. He suffered three motor vehicle accidents, being on 3 May 1986, 26 June 1986 and 14 February 1987. We noted that the first two were during the course of Mr Beale’s work. He told us that on 14 February 1987, the date of the third accident, his truck brakes failed, and the accident aggravated his back and neck injuries.
13. In support of the argument that the war-caused psychiatric conditions were the origin of his problems in his driving job, Mr Beale told us of his short temper during the time he drove Comcars. He described an assault on a politician after which he was returned to driving buses for a time, and an assault on a supervisor on another occasion.
14. After a long period where he took sick leave, Mr Beale ceased work in April 1989. Mr Beale was found to be eligible for workers’ compensation payments from that time, and continues to receive that compensation. The workers’ compensation certificate which is at Exhibit A2/853, certifying Mr Beale unfit to work, is for the period 1 September 2005 to 1 September 2006, and indicates that the compensation is received for cervical and lumbar spondylosis. Mr Beale told us that he suffered neck and back pain after the motor vehicle accidents, but that approximately three months following surgery, his neck recovered. We are however satisfied from the workers’ compensation certificates and medical evidence of Dr Quay, Dr Andrea and Dr Altman that he is being paid compensation for injuries to the back AND neck.
15. Mr Winship who represented Mr Beale, argued that the psychiatric conditions, PTSD, and anxiety and depression contributed to the motor vehicle accidents, and accordingly to the injuries suffered as a result of those.
16. Mr Winship also emphasised that Mr Beale had a history of anxiety and depression which predated his motor vehicle accidents.
17. We then moved to consider the main medical reports.
Dr G Altman, psychiatrist
18. We heard oral evidence from Dr G Altman, a psychiatrist. Dr Altman told us that he had seen Mr Beale approximately six times, four times before writing the report of 4 November 2005 which was at T5, and also in March and April 2006 for purposes of treatment.
19. Dr Altman opined that Mr Beale’s mental state was due to his alcohol dependence, and that his psychiatric conditions could have contributed to his motor vehicle accidents. Dr Altman also opined that the lack of sleep Mr Beale reported, a hazard of his job and his lifestyle, is likely to have affected his driving in 1986/7 when he had the three MVAs. Dr Altman opined that notwithstanding Mr Beale retired from work due to the physical injuries he suffered in the motor vehicle accidents, his psychiatric conditions would have caused such retirement within a short time, even in the absence of such accidents. Dr Altman also agreed that traumas such as motor vehicle accidents aggravated Mr Beale’s psychiatric conditions. Dr Altman gave Mr Beale’s history of anxiety and depression, and the impact upon his mood and his work in a report dated November 2005 (T5). In the same report, Dr Altman opined that Mr Beale’s psychiatric disorders alone, rendered him not well enough to work eight or more hours per week.
20. When asked about Mr Beale’s registering to seek work at Centrelink, Dr Altman explained that sufferers of PTSD like Mr Beale were often very conscientious and hard working people.
Dr R Chase, occupational physician
21. Dr Chase, who is an occupational physician, examined Mr Beale and prepared a report dated 7 June 2010 which was Exhibit R2 before the Tribunal. In his report, Dr Chase observed in reply to the question: Why did Mr Beale leave his last position? as follows: He left his work as a driver for Comcar because of his neck and low back injuries sustained in two work related and one non-work related motor vehicle accidents.
22. Dr Chase also noted that Mr Beale’s disabilities which prevented him from undertaking employment were neck pain and back pain. He added: Indeed it was his neck pain and back pain that stopped him from working in the first place. Dr Chase opined in reply to question 8: In addition to the accepted conditions discussed above, he has a long history of neck and low back pain related to the motor vehicle accidents that are discussed in Appendix ‘A’ and ‘B’. Mr Beale alleged on 29 April 2010 that he no longer has any problems with his neck though that is disingenuous of him in view of the very prolonged treatments that he has had, the extensive nature of those treatments, the surgery and the subsequent diagnosis of a chronic pain syndrome and a very long history of high level opiate consumption. He therefore suffers from chronic neck and back pain.
23. Dr Chase also added that it was Mr Beale’s non accepted medical conditions alone in the first place which prevented him from working, but that his accepted disabilities alone, also prevent him from working. Dr Chase also observed that notwithstanding Mr Beale told him he was registered with Centrelink as looking for work, he understood Mr Beale had not genuinely sought remunerative employment.
Medical evidence of Dr Quay and others
24. Dr Quay’s voluminous files were before the Tribunal as Exhibit A1, and Exhibit A2. We asked the parties to indicate to us the pages on which they relied, and which were relevant to our decision making. We have taken that evidence into account and referred to it when indicated.
25. At page 355, dated 21 November 1989, we noted Dr Quay recorded that Mr Beale was a driver, and had not worked since 17 April 1989 when he underwent surgery for a prolapsed C5-6 disc. He noted further that Mr Beale had workers compensation claims for injuries incurred in three MVAs in 1986 and 1987. He continued: He continues to experience neck and arm pain. Back pain and (R) sciatica have been a problem … although its severity has obviously increased since May 1989. … Mr Beale also suffers from a longstanding anxiety condition which is an accepted War Services disability. His anxiety condition has been exacerbated by his continuing disability.
26. We also noted from Mr Beale’s sick leave records that he had time off for anxiety in 1984 before his motor vehicle accidents.
27. Dr Davies, a gastroenterologist whom Mr Beale consulted, reported on 11 May 1981 that: He (Mr Beale) describes his Vietnam experience as an important time in his life though it was apparent that he was troubled by severe anxiety and depressive symptoms on his return to Australia.
28. Dr Quay at page 457 of his documents in a letter dated 1 September 1994 wrote regarding his view of the apportionment of Mr Beale’s medical conditions to the three motor vehicle accidents. Dr Quay’s estimation of the liability of the three accidents follows:
Cervical Spine Lumbar Spine
(a) Natural causes – 10%
(a) MVA May 1986 – 10% (b) MVA May 1986 – 5%
(b) MVA June 1986 – 10% (c) MVA June 1986 – 5%
(c) MVA Feb 1987 – 80% (d) MVA Feb 1987 – 80%
Exacerbation of Depression/Anxiety
Pre-injury factors – 30%
MVA May 1986 – 10%
MVA June 1986 – 20%
MVA Feb 1987 - 40%
29. A report of Dr Andrea, a surgeon, dated 12 May 1994 reported on his examination of Mr Beale, whose history was given as having been injured in an MVA in February 1987. He reported on Mr Beale’s medical conditions, noting that Mr Beale is an unhealthy man. He stated that Mr Beale’s neck problems resulted in a Cloward’s operation which did not cure his symptoms. He noted also that Mr Beale suffered whiplash type injuries to his neck in the May 1986 accident which were aggravated by the June 1986 accident, and further aggravated by the 1987 accident, so that it was likely that 30 percent of the final neck disability could be attributed to the last accident. He noted that Mr Beale also suffered PTSD.
30. We moved then to consider the application of section 24 of the Act in order to determine whether Mr Beale is eligible for pension at the Special Rate.
Consideration of section 24(1(a) of the Act
31. It is not in dispute that Mr Beale receives pension at 100 percent of the General Rate, and therefore satisfies section 24(1)(a) of the Act.
Consideration of section 24(1)(b) of the Act
32. We have noted that it was due to the Veteran’s non-war caused disabilities, the effects of the motor vehicle accidents, being his neck and back conditions, that he was retired from work.
33. Mr Winship submitted, referring to the documents before us, including a chronology commencing at page 742 of Dr Quay’s Medical Notes, that Mr Beale’s MVAs were largely attributable to his mental state. He submitted that Mr Beale’s anxiety and depression predated each of the three MVAs, and that Mr Beale had been treated for his psychiatric conditions since 1971, which was following his discharge from the Army in 1970. He also submitted that the MVAs could have exacerbated Mr Beale’s depression. He also submitted that it was not clear that the workers compensation payments were not being made for exacerbation of Mr Beale’s depression. Unfortunately we could not accept Mr Winship’s submissions because the workers compensation certificate before us which was for a year, 2005 – 2006, clearly stated that the compensation was for cervical and lumbar spondylosis.
34. Mr Winship argued that Mr Beale could have returned to his driving job in 1991, but for his psychiatric conditions alone. Mr Beale told us that although his back still causes him pain, approximately three months following his neck operation, it was fully better. Mr Beale also told us in his oral evidence that, but for his mental state, he could presently drive buses. However, the medical evidence before us of Dr Quay, Dr Andrea, and Dr Altman contradicted that, and the workers compensation certificate indicated Mr Beale was being compensated for his back and neck injuries. Accordingly we reject Mr Winship’s submissions and Mr Beale’s evidence in that regard.
35. Details of the medical opinions follow. The report of Dr Andrea dated 12 May 1994 reported on his examination of Mr Beale whose history was given as having been injured in a MVA in February 1987. He stated that Mr Beale’s neck problems resulted in a Cloward’s operation which did not cure his symptoms. He noted also that Mr Beale suffered whiplash type injuries to his neck in the May 1986 accident, which were aggravated by the June 1986 accident, and further aggravated by the 1987 accident, so that it was likely that 30 percent of the final neck disability could be attributed to the last accident.
36. We noted that Dr Altman stated he knew Mr Beale had been retired from work due to his back and neck conditions. However he opined also that Mr Beale would also not be able to work as a result of his PTSD alone. We are satisfied that it is as a result of Mr Beale’s physical conditions alone, that Mr Beale was retired from work, and that due to those and his psychiatric conditions, he cannot work in remunerative employment.
37. Dr Chase opined that it was Mr Beale’s non-accepted medical conditions alone in the first place, which prevented him from working, but that his accepted war-caused disabilities alone could also prevent him from working.
38. We are satisfied from the evidence before us that Mr Beale is incapacitated for work due to his physical conditions of neck and back pain alone, but that his PTSD and war-caused injury or disease alone, would also prevent him from working in remunerative employment for periods aggregating more than eight hours per week. He therefore cannot meet the tests in section 24(1)(b) of the Act.
39. Accordingly, because Mr Beale is not incapacitated for work because of his accepted disabilities alone, he is also not suffering a loss of wages or earnings because of his accepted disabilities alone. The latter point is discussed below.
Consideration of section 24(1)(c) of the Act
40. We moved then to consider section 24(1)(c) of the Act, and whether Mr Beale, was, due to his inability to undertake his remunerative work of driving which he had been undertaking, was suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings that he would not be suffering if he were free of that incapacity.
41. In coming to a decision about the application of section 24(1)(c) of the Act, we looked to the decision of Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1, and posed the four relevant questions being:
What was the relevant remunerative work the Veteran was undertaking within the meaning of section 24(1)(c) of the Act?
42. We are satisfied from the evidence that Mr Beale’s last remunerative work was as a driver of Comcars and buses. He ceased that work in approximately 1989/1990, following sick leave taken after work-related MVAs.
Is the Veteran by reason of war-caused injury or war-caused disease or both, prevented from continuing to undertake that work?
43. Mr Beale was ultimately retired on medical grounds due to his neck and back conditions in approximately 1989/1990, following sick leave taken after work- related MVAs. We noted that his PTSD was accepted as war-caused in August 1989.
44. Mr Winship who represented Mr Beale, argued that his war-caused psychiatric conditions contributed to the MVAs. He ran the argument that the effect of the motor vehicle accidents was to exacerbate Mr Beale’s psychiatric injuries in certain percentages. In his opening, he said the first motor vehicle accident caused a 30% exacerbation, the second 60% and the last, 100%.
45. In the documentation to which Mr Winship took us, we noted that Dr Quay estimated the contribution of the three accidents as we have given in earlier paragraphs. In relation to psychiatric injury, Dr Quay apportioned as follows:
Exacerbation of Depression/Anxiety
Pre-injury factors - 30%
MVA May 1986 - 10%
MVA June 1986 - 20%
MVA Feb 1987 - 40%
46. That was of course quite different from the figures on which Mr Winship relied, and which we have reproduced in paragraph 44 above.
47. We noted that Dr Altman opined in reply to Mr Winship’s questioning, that Mr Beale’s mental state was due to his alcohol dependence, and that his psychiatric conditions could have contributed to his motor vehicle accidents. The fact Dr Altman could not put the nexus any higher is of interest, but does not assist Mr Beale’s argument.
48. Dr Altman also opined that the lack of sleep Mr Beale reported, a hazard of his job and his lifestyle, is likely to have affected his driving in 1986/7 when he had the three MVAs. Dr Altman opined that notwithstanding Mr Beale retired from work due to the physical injuries he suffered in the motor vehicle accidents, his psychiatric conditions would have caused such retirement within a short time even in the absence of such accidents. However, what we do know is that Mr Beale was medically retired because of his physical injuries, his back and neck.
49. We were mindful that, although Dr Chase opined that it was Mr Beale’s non-accepted medical conditions alone, in the first place, which prevented him from working, his accepted disabilities alone, would also prevent him from working in remunerative employment.
50. We are satisfied that Mr Beale is prevented from undertaking his work, being driving, but not due to his war-caused disabilities alone. Accordingly the Veteran is by reason of war-caused injury or war-caused disease or both, prevented from continuing to undertake his work of driving.
If the answer to the second question is yes, is the war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, the only factor or factors preventing the Veteran from continuing to undertake that work?
51. The medical evidence before us which is discussed above, was that both Mr Beale’s accepted, and his non-accepted medical conditions, the latter being his neck and back conditions, prevent him from continuing to undertake his driving job.
If the answers to the second and third questions are, in each case, yes, is the Veteran by reason of being prevented from continuing that work, suffering a loss of salary, wages or earnings on his own account, that he would not be suffering if he were free of that incapacity?
52. We are satisfied that Mr Beale has suffered a loss of earnings which he would not be suffering if he were free of his accepted and non-accepted disabilities which each prevent him from undertaking his driving job.
53. We are also satisfied from the evidence before us that, notwithstanding Mr Beale is registered as seeking remunerative work, he has registered on the advice of those who advised him in relation to his veterans entitlements claims, and that he has not genuinely been seeking work.
Conclusions re the Flentjar tests
54. As stated above, we are satisfied that Mr Beale is suffering loss of earnings due to his incapacity for work arising out of his accepted and his non-accepted disabilities. That was because he stopped work due to his back and neck conditions which are not war-caused. His loss of earnings can be attributed to the inability to work in remunerative work due to his neck and back conditions as well as his war-caused disabilities. Accordingly he does not meet the alone test in section 24(1)(c) of the Act.
Consideration of section 24(2) of the Act
55. We have also considered the application of section 24(2) of the Act, and whether Mr Beale’s incapacity from war-caused disabilities was the substantial cause of his inability to obtain remunerative work. We are satisfied that section 24(2) does not apply in Mr Beale’s case because his neck and back conditions alone, were the causes of his medical retirement, notwithstanding his psychiatric conditions alone could later have been considered as being causes of his inability to work. Mr Beale is also not suffering loss of earnings from war-caused disabilities alone. In that regard we relied on Fox v Repatriation Commission (1997) 45 ALD 317.
56. We noted Mr Beale had told the Veterans Review Board that he was not seeking work. Mr Beale first told us that he had registered as seeking work because he was sick of staying at home aimlessly, and later added that it was because his advisors had so advised in connection with his claim for Special Rate pension. We were satisfied, and we make a finding, that Mr Beale was not genuinely seeking work.
Consideration of section 24(2)(b) of the Act
57. We were also able to consider Mr Beale’s situation in relation to the application of section 24(2)(b) of the Act, because he was under 65 years of age when he stopped remunerative work. We had to consider the evidence before us, and the submissions that Mr Beale had been genuinely seeking work. We noted Mr Beale was registered with Centrelink as seeking work. We also noted that when asked about this, Dr Altman explained that sufferers of PTSD like Mr Beale were often very conscientious and hard working people.
58. In his oral evidence Mr Beale first told us that he was seeking work because he got sick of staying at home aimlessly, and explained that he was categorised by Centrelink as ‘class five’, which was someone who is virtually unemployable.
59. When questioned further, he agreed that his legal advisors had told him that in order to assist with his application for Special Rate pension, he needed to genuinely be looking for work, and that was why he registered with Centrelink.
60. Unfortunately the evidence before us from Mr Beale about seeking work was unconvincing and contradictory. At page two of his statement (Exhibit A3), he stated: Since receiving the service pension and because of my war caused disabilities I have not sought employment. In his statement, he said: But recently I was advised by my legal rep to register for employment with Centrelink; they referred (sic) me to a job provider and I have generally been seeking work as a car driver since 4th Nov 09 … We noted that the Full Court of the Federal Court in Leane v Repatriation Commission (2004) 81 ALD 625 dealt with whether a veteran was genuinely seeking work. However even without recourse to authority, we were satisfied from the evidence before us that Mr Beale was not genuinely seeking work.
61. We have also considered the submissions that if the incapacity caused through the war-caused injuries alone did not prevent Mr Beale from remunerative work, then they may have been the substantial factors. In that regard we considered Fox v Repatriation Commission (1997) 45 ALD 317. In Fox v Repatriation Commission, Kiefel J held that substantial cause in section 24(1)(c) of the Act requires that if the incapacity is not in itself productive of the inability to work, it is nevertheless the operative factor which, more than any other, explains it.
62. In that regard we were mindful that Dr Chase opined that it was Mr Beale’s non-accepted medical conditions alone in the first place which prevented him from working. The parties were not in disagreement about that. We noted further that Dr Chase also opined that Mr Beale’s accepted disabilities alone also prevented him from working.
63. However we were satisfied to the requisite standard that the cause for Mr Beale to take retirement from work was on medical (physical) grounds, being the injuries to his neck and back alone. We are mindful that Mr Beale also suffers psychiatric conditions which are war-caused. We are however satisfied from the evidence that Mr Beale has not been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work. He cannot satisfy the tests contemplated in section 24(2)(b) of the Act. Accordingly Mr Beale is not eligible for pension at the Special Rate.
CONCLUSIONS
64. Mr Beale does not satisfy the tests for Special Rate of pension.
DECISION
65. The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
I certify that the 65 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member G
Ettinger and Dr M E C Thorpe, MemberSigned: sgd
AssociateDate of Hearing 16 September 2010
Date of Decision 9 November 2010
Solicitor for the Applicant Mr B Winship, Winship Legal
Advocate for the Respondent Mr N Bunn, Repatriation Commission
3
1