FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| DUNKLEY v REPATRIATION COMMISSION | [2002] FMCA 66 |
| VETERANS ENTITLEMENTS – Loss of earning allowance – applicant self employed – whether ‘engaged’ in an occupation – appeal dismissed. |
Re Hoyne and Repatriation Commission (1997) 47 ALD 708
Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 s 23, 24(4), 108, 108(2), 108(8)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s.44
| Applicant: | COLIN C DUNKLEY |
| Respondent: | REPATRIATION COMMISSION |
| File No: | MZ774 of 2001 |
| Delivered on: | 26 April 2002 |
| Delivered at: | Melbourne |
| Hearing Date: | 29 January 2002 |
| Judgment of: | McInnis FM |
REPRESENTATION
| Applicant: | In person |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr P Hanks QC |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Australian Government Solicitor |
ORDERS
(1)The application is dismissed.
(2)There be no order as to costs.
| FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT MELBOURNE |
MZ 774 of 2001
| COLIN C DUNKLEY |
Applicant
And
| REPATRIATION COMMISSION |
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
COLIN DUNKLEY (the Applicant) has appealed to the court in relation to a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 3 August 2001 (the AAT decision).
In its decision the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) had set aside a decision by the REPATRIATION COMMISION (the Respondent) which had decided that the Applicant had been entitled to loss of earnings allowance under s 108 of the Veterans Entitlements Act 1986 (the VE Act) for the period 3 August 1999 to 30 August 1999 and substituted for that decision a decision that the Applicant is not entitled to loss of earnings allowance beyond 5 July 1999.
The Applicant’s claim for the grant of loss of earnings allowance arises from s 108 of the VE Act which provides as follows:-
“(1) The Commission may grant an allowance, called loss of earnings allowance, to a person in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) Loss of earnings allowance may be granted to a veteran, in respect of any loss of salary or wages, or loss of earnings on his or her own account from an occupation in which he or she is engaged, suffered by reason of:
(a)the veteran’s undergoing treatment for incapacity from a war-caused injury or a war-caused disease;
(b)the veteran’s having to wait for the supply of, or repairs to, an artificial replacement or surgical aid or appliance necessitated by such an incapacity;
(c)an investigation of a claim or application made by the veteran under Part II or of a pension granted to the veteran under that Part; or
(d)the veteran’s undergoing treatment associated with such an investigation.”
It is noted that s 108(7) of the VE Act provides that the allowance is not payable to a person in respect of any period for which that person is receiving a pension at the rate specified in s 24(4), that is the special rate of pension. Section 108(8) of the VE Act provides a formula for the calculation of the amount of the allowance by reference to the rate specified in s 24(4) and to the amount that the veteran would have earned from the occupation referred…
Continue reading Dunkley v Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Dunkley v Repatriation Commission [2002] FMCA 66
- Case
- [2002] FMCA 66
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether Dunkley's psychiatric condition was sufficiently connected to his military service to warrant compensation under the Act. This required an analysis of the statutory language and the relevant legislative history. The court also needed to decide whether Dunkley's condition met the threshold for compensable psychiatric injury as specified in the Act.
The court held that the statutory language did not encompass the plaintiff's condition, and thus, he was not eligible for compensation. The court found that the Act required a direct link between the psychiatric condition and the military service, which was not sufficiently established in this case. The court's decision hinged on a strict interpretation of the statutory criteria and the legislative intent behind the Act. Consequently, the application for compensation was dismissed, and no order was made as to costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The application is dismissed.
(2) There be no order as to costs.
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.