Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 42
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/1353
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re ANTHONY GEORGE CARR Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member K Bean
Mr S J Ellis AM (Member)Date31 January 2011
PlaceAdelaide
Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
..............................................
K BEAN
(Senior Member)
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlements – Rate of disability pension – Special rate – Whether part-time teaching work part of remunerative work undertaken by veteran – Application of “alone” test – Veteran’s cessation of full-time employment contributed to by factors other than accepted disabilities – Cessation of part-time work also contributed to by other factors – Alone test not satisfied – Decision under review affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 24
Starcevich v Repatriation Commission (1987) 76 ALR 449
Hill v Repatriation Commission [2000] FCA 929
Anderson v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1009
Repatriation Commission v Hendy (2002) 76 ALD 47REASONS FOR DECISION
31 January 2011 Senior Member K Bean
Mr SJ Ellis AM (Member)introduction
1. The applicant, Mr Carr, was conscripted into the Australian Army in April 1966, and deployed to Vietnam in April 1967. He was wounded in action during the Vietnam war and ultimately discharged following his return to Australia on 18 March 1968. Prior to being called up for national service, he had been employed by the National Australia Bank (NAB) as a probationer and following his return from Vietnam, he resumed that employment on 10 April 1968. For some 39 years after that, he pursued a highly successful career with the NAB, rising to the position of Controller of the Asset Structuring Department in Adelaide. Between 1984 and 2006 he also carried out lecturing in banking on a part-time basis at a TAFE college.
2. Unfortunately, Mr Carr’s career with the NAB ended prematurely when he resigned on 2 November 2002, following the arrival of a new manager and in circumstances which will be discussed more fully later in these reasons.
3. Following his resignation from the NAB, Mr Carr was diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which has been accepted as resulting from his service, together with a number of other conditions.
4. In July 2006, Mr Carr also ceased his employment as a part-time lecturer and following his cessation of that employment he lodged an application for an increase in his disability pension[1]. In response to that application, the Repatriation Commission increased his pension to 90 percent of the general rate with effect from 26 July 2006[2].
[1] T8/54
[2] T15/95
5. On 27 February 2007, Mr Carr applied for review of that decision by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB)[3], seeking to be paid pension at the special rate, and on 16 March 2010, the VRB decided to affirm the Repatriation Commission’s decision[4]. Mr Carr has now applied to this tribunal for review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission, as affirmed by the VRB.
[3]…
Continue reading Carr and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Carr and Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 42
- Case
- [2011] AATA 42
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issue the court was required to decide was whether the cessation of the veteran's full-time employment and subsequent part-time work could be attributed solely to the disabilities accepted by the Repatriation Commission, or whether other factors also contributed to these employment changes. If the disabilities alone did not cause the cessation of the veteran’s employment, then the pension rate might not be adjusted to the special rate.
The court examined the circumstances surrounding the cessation of the veteran's full-time employment and the subsequent part-time teaching work. It was determined that the cessation of both forms of employment was influenced by factors other than the accepted disabilities. As a result, the "alone" test was not satisfied, meaning the special rate of disability pension was not applicable. The court upheld the decision of the Repatriation Commission and affirmed the decision under review.
The final orders of the court were that the decision under review, which declined to apply the special rate of disability pension to the veteran, was affirmed. The veteran's pension rate remained unchanged, and the court did not find in favour of the veteran's application to adjust the pension rate.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed.
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.