Bird and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned a veteran's claim for travel expenses of an attendant, Mrs Codd, who accompanied him to Brisbane for inpatient treatment. The dispute centred on the quantum of reimbursement for Mrs Codd's travel expenses, specifically whether her accommodation costs in Brisbane should be paid or if a lesser amount based on a comparative analysis of travel options was applicable. The decision was made by Deputy President Sosso P.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine the veteran's entitlement for reimbursement of his attendant's travel expenses, in light of the Repatriation Commission's contention that a comparative analysis of two specific travel options, as mandated by regulation 9(18), dictated the payable amount. This analysis involved comparing the cost of the attendant travelling to and from the veteran's location for admission and discharge versus the cost of the attendant staying in commercial accommodation.

The court considered the Commission's acceptance that Mrs Codd accompanied the veteran and was authorised to do so, and that her reasonable travelling expenses were payable. The Commission argued that regulation 9(18) required a comparison between the cost of the attendant returning home and then travelling back for discharge, and the cost of the attendant remaining in commercial accommodation. The Commission calculated the former option to be $808.15, which was substantially less than the $3,834.00 that would have been payable for commercial accommodation. The veteran relied on a previous decision, *Bird and Repatriation Commission* (2020), concerning similar attendant travel costs. Ultimately, the court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the comparative analysis mandated by regulation 9(18) applied.