Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 806
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2010/1412
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re PETER DUNSTALL Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member Date20 October 2010
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...............[Sgd]...............................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlements – Veteran in receipt of 100% general rate pension – Veteran not able to undertake remunerative work for more than 8 hours per week because of war-caused conditions – Veteran not prevented from undertaking remunerative work that he was undertaking because of war-caused conditions alone – Special rate of pension not payable - Intermediate rate of pension not payable - Decision under review affirmed.
Safety, Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988 (Cth)
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 5Q, 14, 19, 22, 23, 24, 119, 120
Birtles v Repatriation Commission (1991) 105 ALR 359
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 26 AAR 93, (1997) 48 ALD 1
Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 101 FCR 50
Jebb v Repatriation Commission (1988) 80 ALR 329
Leane v Repatriation Commission (2004) 81 ALD 625
Magill v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCA 744
Peacock v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1449
Repatriation Commission v Boyle (1997) 47 ALD 637
Repatriation Commission v Hendy (2002) 76 ALD 47
Repatriation Commission v Van Heteren (2003) 75 ALD 703
Van Ewijk v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 17REASONS FOR DECISION
20 October 2010 Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member BACKGROUND
1. On 23 April 2009, Peter Dunstall lodged a claim, under s 14 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”) for a pension. On 21 September 2009, a delegate of the respondent determined that Mr Dunstall suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, lumbar spondylosis and osteoarthritis of the knees and that these were war-caused, in accordance with s 120 of the Act. The delegate increased the rate of disability pension, under s 22 of the Act, to 100% of the general rate with effect from 23 January 2009. On 22 March 2010, the Veterans’ Review Board (“the Board”) affirmed that decision. In so determining, the delegate and the Board were satisfied that Mr Dunstall did not qualify for the intermediate or the special rate of pension under s 23 or s 24 of the Act, respectively.
ISSUES AND LEGISLATION
2. Assessment matters in issue are determined to the Tribunal’s reasonable satisfaction in accordance with substantial justice and the substantial merits of the case[1]. In that process, neither party bears an onus of proof[2]. The procedure, set out in s 19 of the Act, requires the rate of pension to be assessed from time to time during the assessment period[3] which is defined as starting on the application day and ending when the claim or application is determined[4]. It is not disputed that the application day in this case was 23 April 2009 or that the assessment period runs from that day until the matter is determined.
[1]…
Continue reading DUNSTALL and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- DUNSTALL and REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2010] AATA 806
- Case
- [2010] AATA 806
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the veteran's war-caused conditions were the sole reason preventing him from undertaking remunerative work, as required by the legislation. The Tribunal had to assess if the veteran was able to undertake remunerative work, considering all circumstances, including the effect of his war-caused conditions. The relevant provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 were examined to determine the correct pension rate. The Tribunal also considered relevant case law, including Birtles v Repatriation Commission, Flentjar v Repatriation Commission, and others, to interpret the legislative provisions correctly.
After reviewing the evidence and applicable law, the Tribunal concluded that the veteran was not solely prevented from undertaking remunerative work by his war-caused conditions. The Tribunal found that the veteran's ability to work beyond eight hours per week was influenced by factors other than his war-caused conditions. As such, the Tribunal affirmed the Repatriation Commission's decision that the veteran did not qualify for the special rate of pension. The Tribunal found that neither the special rate nor the intermediate rate of pension was payable to the veteran.
The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the veteran's claim for a higher pension rate was dismissed.
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.