Bridges and Repatriation Commission

Case [2005] AATA 1266

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal
 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1266

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No W2004/428

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re KENNETH JOHN BRIDGES

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Brigadier R D F Lloyd, Member
Dr D Weerasooriya, Member
Brigadier A G Warner, Member

Date20 December 2005

PlacePerth

Decision

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

................(sgd R Lloyd)..................

Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS' AFFAIRS - Veterans' Entitlements - disability pension at 100% of General Rate - claim for Special Rate - ceased work as fireman on medical grounds - whether prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work due to war-caused incapacity - alone test - ameliorating provision - whether accepted disability (especially PTSD) is substantial cause of inability to obtain remunerative work - not genuinely seeking to engage - not entitled to Special Rate - decision under review affirmed

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 24

Forbes v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 328

Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] 76 ALD 47

Miller v Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 972

Leane v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCAFC 83

Vuckovich v Repatriation Commission [1999] AATA 314

Jenkins v Repatriation Commission [2001] AATA 24

Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424

Repatriation Commission v Alexander [2003] FCA 399

Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1998) 9 AAR 534

Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1998) 48 ALD1

Bunney v Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 447

Repatriation Commission v Sheehy (1995) 133 ALR 654

Birtles v Repatriation Commission (1991) 24 ALD 545

Easton v Repatriation Commission (1987) 6 AAR 558

Gurney v Repatriation Commission (1989) 18 ALD 760

McCrae v Repatriation Commission (1990) 19 ALD 439

Fry v Repatriation Commission [1997] 771 FCA

Starcevich v Repatriation Commission (1987) 18 FCR 221

Martin v Repatriation Commission (1987) 13 ALD 83

Hall v Repatriation Commission (1994) 33 ALD 454

REASONS FOR DECISION

20 December 2005 Brigadier R D F Lloyd, Member
Dr D Weerasooriya, Member
Brigadier A G Warner, Member    

Introduction

1.      This is an application before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) by Mr Kenneth J Bridges (“the applicant”) for a review of the 17 September 2004 decision of the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”) which affirmed an earlier decision by the Repatriation Commission (“the respondent”) dated 22 January 2003.  That decision by the respondent rejected the applicant’s application for an increase in his disability pension, in which he was seeking pension at the Special Rate, and continued it at 100% of the General Rate.

2.      It is only the assessment of the applicant’s entitlement for pension at the Special Rate that is in contention in this review by the Tribunal.

3.      The applicant attended the hearing and was represented by Mr R Grayden of Hammond Worthington, Solicitors and the respondent by Mr C Ponnuthurai, a departmental advocate.

Documents and Witnesses

4. The Tribunal had before it the documents filed pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the T documents”). In addition the following documents were taken into evidence:

(a)At the…

Continue reading Bridges and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Bridges and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 1266
Case
[2005] AATA 1266
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an application for review of a decision by the Repatriation Commission, which denied a claim for a Special Rate under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The applicant, who had ceased working as a fireman due to medical reasons, sought to establish that his war-caused incapacity was a substantial cause of his inability to obtain remunerative work. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's war-caused incapacity was the substantial cause of his inability to obtain remunerative work, thereby justifying a Special Rate under the Act. This involved examining the "alone test" and considering whether the applicant was genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work. The court also needed to determine whether the applicant had an accepted disability, particularly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), that substantially contributed to his inability to obtain employment.

The court reviewed the applicable legislation and relevant case law, including Forbes v Repatriation Commission and Repatriation Commission v Hendy, among others. The court considered the evidence presented and the statutory criteria for awarding a Special Rate. The court found that the applicant had not met the threshold of demonstrating that his war-caused incapacity was the substantial cause of his inability to obtain remunerative work. Furthermore, the court determined that the applicant was not genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, leading to the conclusion that he was not entitled to the Special Rate.

The Federal Court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, upholding the denial of the applicant's claim for a Special Rate. The court's decision was based on the applicant's failure to meet the statutory criteria and the evidence provided during the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.