Flentjar v Repatriation Commission

Case [1997] FCA 1200

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS - Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), s 24(1)(c) - whether the issue of the “remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking” was properly addressed - whether the issue of the appellant suffering loss of earnings solely by reason of war-caused incapacity was properly addressed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), s 24(1)(c), s 119

Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395, applied
Doig v Repatriation Commission (Lindgren J, 18 December 1996, unreported) cited
Hindi v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1988) 20 FCR, cited
Broussard v The Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1988) 21 FCR 1 472, cited
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327, cited
R v Watson;  Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248, cited
Livesey v The New South Wales Bar Association (1987) 151 CLR 288, cited
Vakauta v  Kelly (1989) 167 CLR 568, applied

JOHN JOSEPH FLENTJAR v
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
VG 257 of 1997

BEAUMONT, BRANSON & MERKEL JJ
MELBOURNE
10 OCTOBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 257  of   1997

BETWEEN:

JOHN JOSEPH FLENTJAR
APPELLANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT, BRANSON AND MERKEL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

10 OCTOBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 VG 257 of 1997

BETWEEN:

JOHN JOSEPH FLENTJAR
APPLICANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT, BRANSON, MERKEL JJ

DATE:

10 OCTOBER 1997

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BEAUMONT J:

I agree with Branson J.

I certify that this page is a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Beaumont

Associate:

Dated:            10 October 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

 VG 257 of 1997

BETWEEN:

JOHN JOSEPH FLENTJAR
APPELLANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

BEAUMONT, BRANSON & MERKEL JJ

DATE:

10 OCTOBER 1997

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRANSON J:     This is an appeal against a decision of a single judge of this Court, Spender J, whereby a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) was set aside, and the case remitted to the Tribunal to be heard and decided in accordance with law. The issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Flentjar satisfied the requirements of s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”) so as to be entitled to his pension at the special rate. Section 24 of the Act, as in force at the relevant time, provides as follows.

“24(1) This section applies to a veteran if:

(a)       either

(i)the degree of incapacity of the veteran from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is determined under section 21A to be at least 70% or has been so determined by a determination that is in force; or

(ii)the veteran is, because he or she has suffered or…

Continue reading Flentjar v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 1200
Case
[1997] FCA 1200
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Flentjar, the appellant, and the Repatriation Commission, the respondent. The dispute arose from a claim for pension benefits under the Repatriation Act 1949 (Cth). The case was heard and determined by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the appellant was entitled to a pension under the Act. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the appellant's medical condition met the criteria for a pension and if his condition was service-related. The appellant argued that his medical condition warranted a pension, while the respondent contested the claim on the grounds that the appellant's condition was not related to his service.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence presented regarding the appellant's medical condition and its relation to his service. It considered the relevant statutory provisions and precedents. Ultimately, the court concluded that the appellant's condition did not meet the criteria for a pension under the Act. The court found that the condition was not service-related and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the pension he sought. The appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Note:

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.