Burns v Minister for Veterans' Affairs - [2025] FCA 1096

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Burns v Minister for Veterans’ Affairs [2025] FCA 1096

File number: QUD 160 of 2025

Judgment of: SARAH C DERRINGTON J

Date of judgment: 8 September 2025

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of a decision of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs made under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme – where applicant brought claim that his Special Rate Pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) should not have been offset against his Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1998 (Cth) compensation entitlements – where Department determined that applicant was not entitled to an award of compensation under the Scheme – where applicant alleges the decision misapprehended the operation of s 30C(1)(b) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – whether jurisdictional error shown – consideration of correct construction of applicable statutory pension entitlements and offsetting provisions – application dismissed

Legislation:
Constitution ss 61, 64

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1998 (Cth)

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 5D, 9, 13, 24(1)(b), 30C, 31, 70, 71, 73, 74, 115

Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Act 2011 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 10; 279 CLR 1

McDermid v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCA 372; 150 ALD 55

Repatriation Commission v McDermid [2016] FCAFC 179; 248 FCR 528

Singh v Minister for Government Services [2024] FCA 368

Division: General Division

Registry: Queensland

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number of paragraphs: 32

Date of hearing: 18 August 2025

Date of last submission: 2 September 2025

Counsel for the Applicant: Applicant was self-represented

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Wright

Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDERS

QUD 160 of 2025

BETWEEN:
PETER PHILLIP BURNS

Applicant

AND:
MINISTER FOR VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

SARAH C DERRINGTON J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 SEPTEMBER 2025

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
SARAH C DERRINGTON J:
BACKGROUND

The applicant, Mr Peter Burns, is a former member of the Australian Defence Force. Mr Burns seeks judicial review of a Decision made by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme (CDDA Scheme) made on 13 March 2025.
Mr Burns lodged a claim under the CDDA Scheme on 22 June 2023 on the basis that the Department’s application of the offsetting provisions in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (VEA) was defective, in that his Special Rate Pension should not have been offset against his Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1998 (Cth) (DRCA) compensation entitlements. Mr Burns claims that approximately $81,000…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Burns v Minister for Veterans' Affairs and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FCA 1096
Decision Date: 8 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Burns brought a judicial review application against the Minister for Veterans' Affairs in relation to a decision made by the Department of Veterans' Affairs under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme. The dispute centred on whether Burns' Special Rate Pension, awarded under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, should have been offset against his compensation entitlements under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1998. Burns contended that the Department's determination that he was not entitled to an award of compensation under the Scheme involved a misinterpretation of section 30C(1)(b) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The primary legal issues revolved around whether the Department's decision was a jurisdictional error and the proper interpretation of statutory provisions regarding pension entitlements and offsetting.

The Federal Court examined the statutory provisions governing pension entitlements and the offsetting provisions between different compensation schemes. The Court concluded that the Department's decision did not involve a jurisdictional error. The Court held that the statutory provisions were correctly interpreted and applied by the Department. The Court found that the applicant's contention regarding the misapprehension of section 30C(1)(b) was not substantiated by the evidence or the correct interpretation of the relevant legislation.

As a result of the Court's findings, the application for judicial review was dismissed. The Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application, subject to taxation if not agreed. This decision was made under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in judicial review proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.

File number:	QUD 160 of 2025
Judgment of:	SARAH C DERRINGTON J
Date of judgment:	8 September 2025
Catchwords:	ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for judicial review of a decision of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs made under the Compensation for Detriment caused by Defective Administration Scheme – where applicant brought claim that his Special Rate Pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) should not have been offset against his Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1998 (Cth) compensation entitlements – where Department determined that applicant was not entitled to an award of compensation under the Scheme – where applicant alleges the decision misapprehended the operation of s 30C(1)(b) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – whether jurisdictional error shown – consideration of correct construction of applicable statutory pension entitlements and offsetting provisions – application dismissed
Legislation:	Constitution ss 61, 64 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1998 (Cth) Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 5D, 9, 13, 24(1)(b), 30C, 31, 70, 71, 73, 74, 115 Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Act 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited:	Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2023] HCA 10; 279 CLR 1 McDermid v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCA 372; 150 ALD 55 Repatriation Commission v McDermid [2016] FCAFC 179; 248 FCR 528 Singh v Minister for Government Services [2024] FCA 368
Division:	General Division
Registry:	Queensland
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number of paragraphs:	32
Date of hearing:	18 August 2025
Date of last submission:	2 September 2025
Counsel for the Applicant:	Applicant was self-represented
Counsel for the Respondent:	Ms S Wright
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers

ORDER MADE BY:	SARAH C DERRINGTON J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 SEPTEMBER 2025