Hopkins v Repatriation Commission

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hopkins v Repatriation Commission [2009] FCA 1037

FRANCIS JAMES HOPKINS v REPATRIATION COMMISSION

SAD 79 of 2009

MANSFIELD J
16 SEPTEMBER 2009
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 79 of 2009

BETWEEN:	FRANCIS JAMES HOPKINS Applicant
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 SEPTEMBER 2009
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application is dismissed.

2.The applicant pay to the respondent its costs of the application.

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

The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	SAD 79 of 2009

BETWEEN:	FRANCIS JAMES HOPKINS Applicant
AND:	REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	16 SEPTEMBER 2009
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. Section 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) provides for an appeal on a question of law to this Court from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). Mr Hopkins has exercised that entitlement in this matter, although not without some dissent from the Repatriation Commission (the Commission) because, it says, his appeal raises no question of law. In any event, it says that the Tribunal committed no error of law in reaching the decision the subject of his appeal.

2. The primary facts are not in dispute.  The appeal, ultimately, concerns the amount of the entitlement to a pension on the part of Mr Hopkins under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the VE Act). The particular issue ventilated before the Tribunal was whether he was entitled the general rate of pension, or under s 24 of the VE Act to the special rate of pension. There is a significant difference in the applicable weekly rates of pension.

3. It is convenient to record the background and the non-contentious facts.

4. Mr Hopkins on 8 December 2006, claimed a pension and other payments under the VE Act in respect of a number of conditions: tinea, ingrown toenails in both feet, bilateral pterygium, and osteoarthrosis of the left knee. The Commission, on 15 June 2007, accepted that all those conditions were “war-caused” within the meaning of the VE Act, and it decided that Mr Hopkins was entitled to a pension at 100% of the general rate from and including 8 September 2006. That decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board on 25 October 2007.

5. Mr Hopkins then sought review of that decision by the Tribunal. The question was whether he was entitled to the special rate of pension under s 24 of the VE Act, or to the general rate of pension which he had been awarded.

6. The relevant provisions of the VE Act are ss 24(1)(c) and 24(2). They provide:

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

   …

   (c)the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both,…