CFJX and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements)

CFJX and Repatriation Commission (Veterans’ entitlements) [2016] AATA 207 (4 April 2016)

Division	VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
File Number(s)	2013/2079
Re	CFJX
APPLICANT
And	Repatriation Commission
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal	Deputy President Melick
Date	4 April 2016
Place	Hobart

The decision under review is affirmed.

........................................................................

Deputy President G Melick AO RFD SC

CATCHWORDS

DEFENCE AND WAR – veterans’ entitlements ­- ­special rate of pension under s24(1)(c) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – whether Applicant alone prevented from engaging in remunerative working by war-caused injuries

LEGISLATION

Veterans Entitlements Act 1986

CASES

Smith v Repatriation Commission [2014] FCAFC 53

Repatriation Commission vButcher [2007] FCAFC 36

Beezley v Repatriation Commission [2015] FCAFC 165

Repatriation Commission vHendy [2002] FCAFC 424

Repatriation Commission v Richmond [2014] FCAFC 124; 226 FCR 2

REASONS FOR DECISION

Deputy President Melick

OVERVIEW

1. The Applicant had worked in the Hobart office of Recall Information Management Pty Ltd (Recall) since 1996 but was made redundant in August 2011 and has not worked since.

2. In 2005 the Applicant was granted a partial disability pension which was later increased to a full pension.

3. On 9 March 2012 the Applicant applied for an increase in pension rate pursuant to section 15 of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (VEA).

4. The claim was made upon the basis that as a result of a war caused condition the Applicant was prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work for at least eight hours per week after an involuntary redundancy from his place of work.

5. The claim was initially rejected by the Repatriation Commission on the 3 August 2012 where upon the Applicant sought a review of that decision.  The Veteran’s Review Board affirmed the decision upon the basis that, inter alia, the Applicant’s war caused condition did not alone prevent the Applicant from undertaking remunerative work.

6. The Applicant seeks to have that decision reviewed.

   FACTUAL BACKGROUND

7. After hearings in May and August 2015, and further submissions in February 2016, most of the areas in dispute between the Applicant and the Respondent appear to have been resolved or agreed, but unfortunately the legislative scheme is, in the words of Rares, Buchanan and Foster JJ,[1] “bedevilled with bewildering complexity”.

   [1] Smith v Repatriation Commission [2014] FCAFC 53 at [26]

8. Because of the lack of dispute on the majority of the facts, and the raising of no significant issues of credit, I find the following only referring to the evidence in any detail where I was asked to draw different inferences.

9. The Applicant was engaged in war service in South Vietnam in 1966. There was no dispute that as a result of that service the Applicant was now suffering Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and is now incapacitated to such an extent that he is incapable of undertaking remunerative work for more than eight hours per week.

10. The Applicant commenced working in the Hobart Office of Recall (or associated companies) in 1996 and was the Information Centre Manager of the Hobart Office at the time of…