Guilford and Repatriation Commission

Case [2008] AATA 952

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 952

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q200600891  

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )         & 2008/0865
Re PETER GUILFORD

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr K S Levy RFD, Senior Member

Date24 October 2008

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal determines:-

1.        The decision in relation to the claims for anxiety and depression is affirmed.

2.        The decision in relation to the claims for special rate of pension is affirmed.

...............[Sgd]........................

Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – Veterans’ Entitlements – special rate pension – applicant served with Royal Australian Navy – applicant suffers from peripheral neuropathy, anxiety disorder and depression – peripheral neuropathy accepted war caused condition  – anxiety disorder not war caused – depression not war caused – whether applicant is entitled to special rate of pension – application of Flentjar principles – Tribunal must assess conditions at commencement of “assessment period” – applicant did not cease work solely because of war caused condition – decision under review affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 9, 5B (1), 6-6F, 13(1), 24(1) (aab), 24(1) (b), 24(1) (c), 24(2A), 25, 120, 120(1), 120(3), 120A (3), 196B

Repatriation Commission v Deledio [1998] FCA 391; (1998) 49 ALD 193; (1998) 83 FCR 82

Bull v Repatriation Commission (2001) 188 ALR 756; (2001) 66 ALD 271

Hardman v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1174; (2004) 82 ALD 433

Repatriation Commission v Bey (1997) 149 ALR 721; (1997) 79 FCR 364

Repatriation Commission v Stares (1996) 41 ALD 212

Repatriation Commission v Hill [2002] FCAFC 192; (2002) 69 ALD 581

White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633; (2004) 39 AAR 67

East v Repatriation Commission (1987) 16 CR 517; (1987) 74 ALR 518

Bushell v Repatriation Commission (1992) 175 CLR 408; (1992) 109 ALR 30

Re Stonehouse and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 707

Banovich v Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395

Flentjar and Repatriation Commissioner (1997) 48 ALD 1 at 425

Repatriation Commission v Butcher [2007] FCAFC 36; (2007) 94 ALD 364

Cavell and Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534

Hall v Repatriation Commission (1994) 33 ALD 454

Fox v Repatriation Commission (1997) 45 ALD 317

Re Hornery and Repatriation Commission (1998) 52 ALD 317

Langley v Repatriation Commission (1993) 115 ALR 51

Repatriation Commission v O’Brien (1985) 155 CLR 422

Repatriation Commission v Strickland (1990) 22 ALD 10

Smith v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 743

Re Harris and Repatriation Commission (1998) 51 ALD 789

Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 171 ALR 131

Repatriation Commission v Braund (1991) 23 ALD 591

Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298

Brandi v Mingot (1976) 12 ALR 551

Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia (2000) 103 FCR 1

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

REASONS FOR DECISION

24 October 2008 Dr K S Levy RFD, Senior Member           

1.      The Applicant, Mr Peter Guilford, has made two separate applications to this Tribunal:

(a)Claims for recognition of the conditions of anxiety and depression as…

Continue reading Guilford and Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Guilford and Repatriation Commission [2008] AATA 952
Case
[2008] AATA 952
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Guilford and Repatriation Commission involved a dispute over the eligibility of a veteran for a special rate pension. The applicant, who served with the Royal Australian Navy, was suffering from peripheral neuropathy, anxiety disorder, and depression. The peripheral neuropathy was accepted as being war-caused, while the anxiety disorder and depression were not. The central issue was whether the applicant was entitled to the special rate of pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. This required the application of the principles established in Flentjar and the determination of the conditions the applicant had at the beginning of the "assessment period."

The Court reviewed the decision of the Tribunal, which had affirmed the Repatriation Commission's determination that the applicant was not entitled to the special rate of pension. The Tribunal held that the applicant did not cease work solely because of the war-caused condition and that the anxiety disorder and depression were not attributable to war service. The Court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the Flentjar principles and had correctly assessed the applicant’s conditions at the commencement of the assessment period. It was held that the applicant had not established that the peripheral neuropathy was the sole or principal cause of his incapacity for work.

The Tribunal's decision was affirmed, and the applicant's claims for anxiety and depression, as well as for the special rate of pension, were dismissed. The Court found that the Tribunal had not erred in its application of the relevant statutory provisions and principles, and the decision under review was properly made.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal determines:-

1. The decision in relation to the claims for anxiety and depression is affirmed.

2. The decision in relation to the claims for special rate of pension is affirmed.

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.