Grundman v Repatriation Commission

Case [2001] FCA 892

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Grundman v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 892

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ entitlements – finding that veteran not prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work by reason of war-caused incapacity alone – whether adequate reasons for decision – two periods of incapacity – failure to make an assessment of rate of pension in respect of first period – whether substantive declaration appropriate

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 19, 22, 24, 119
Veterans’ Affairs (1994-1995 Budget Measures) Legislation Amendment Act 1994 (Cth) s 17

Repatriation Commission v Strickland (1990) 22 ALD 10, considered
Repatriation Commission v Smith (1987) 15 FCR 327, cited
Brackenreg v Comcare Australia (1995) 56 FCR 335, cited
Steed v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1981) 37 ALR 620, cited
Kumar v Immigration Review Tribunal (1992) 36 FCR 544, referred to
Repatriation Commission v Flentjar (1997) 47 ALD 67, approved
Thanh Phat Ma v Billings (1997) 142 ALR 158, referred to
Repatriation Commission v Nation (1995) 57 FCR 25, followed

VERNA RUTH GRUNDMAN v REPATRIATION COMMISSION
V 626 of 2000

GRAY J
12 JULY 2001
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 626 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

VERNA RUTH GRUNDMAN
APPLICANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GRAY J

DATE OF ORDER:

12 JULY 2001

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1To the extent that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided that, during the period from 29 April 1993 to 3 July 1994, the appropriate rate of pension payable to the late Mr Grundman was 50 per cent of the general rate:

(a)    the appeal be allowed; and

(b)   that part of the tribunal’s decision be set aside.

2The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for determination of the appropriate rate of pension payable to Mr Grundman during the period from 29 April 1993 to 3 July 1994.

3Otherwise, the appeal be dismissed.

4The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding up to and including 2 May 2001.

5The applicant pay the respondent’s costs on and from 3 May 2001, including the costs of the hearing.

6On any taxation of costs, the amount the respondent is liable to pay be set off against the amount the applicant is liable to pay and the balance be paid by the party liable to pay the greater amount.

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

V 626 of 2000

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

VERNA RUTH GRUNDMAN
APPLICANT

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

GRAY J

DATE:

12 JULY 2001

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”) is in respect of a decision of the AAT made on 24 July 2000, affirming two decisions of the Veterans’ Review Board (“the VRB”). By s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act

Continue reading Grundman v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Grundman v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 892
Case
[2001] FCA 892
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the matter of Grundman v Repatriation Commission involved a dispute over the rate of pension payable to the late Mr Grundman, a war veteran, from 29 April 1993 to 3 July 1994. The primary issue before the court was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was correct in determining that the appropriate rate of pension during this period was 50 per cent of the general rate. The applicant, who was the executor of Mr Grundman's estate, argued that the pension rate should be higher, contending that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the relevant legislation.

The court considered the applicable statutory provisions and the AAT's reasoning in reaching its decision. It found that the AAT had not adequately considered certain evidence and had misapplied the law in determining the pension rate. The court held that the AAT's decision needed to be set aside, and the matter should be remitted to the AAT for redetermination of the correct pension rate for the specified period. The court also addressed the costs associated with the appeal, determining that the respondent should pay the applicant's costs up to a certain date, while the applicant would bear the costs from that date onwards, with any balance to be paid by the party liable for the greater amount.

In summary, the Federal Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the AAT's determination of the pension rate for the period in question and remitting the matter back to the AAT for re-evaluation. The court also made specific orders regarding the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 To the extent that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided that, during the period from 29 April 1993 to 3 July 1994, the appropriate rate of pension payable to the late Mr Grundman was 50 per cent of the general rate:

(a) the appeal be allowed; and

(b) that part of the tribunal’s decision be set aside.

2 The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for determination of the appropriate rate of pension payable to Mr Grundman during the period from 29 April 1993 to 3 July 1994.

3 Otherwise, the appeal be dismissed.

4 The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the proceeding up to and including 2 May 2001.

5 The applicant pay the respondent’s costs on and from 3 May 2001, including the costs of the hearing.

6 On any taxation of costs, the amount the respondent is liable to pay be set off against the amount the applicant is liable to pay and the balance be paid by the party liable to pay the greater amount.

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

GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GRAY J

Full text does not contain this section.