ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - appeal from decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”) that applicant not eligible for special rate of pension - whether AAT failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons - whether AAT decision based on finding that there was an intervening event or condition - whether decision so unreasonable that no reasonable decision maker could have so decided - whether AAT applied the correct standard of proof
TERENCE WILLIAM JACKMAN - v - REPATRIATION COMMISSION
No NG 521 of 1996
Tamberlin J Sydney 30 June 1997
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
)
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
) No. NG 521 of 1996
)
GENERAL DIVISION
)
BETWEEN:
TERENCE WILLIAM JACKMAN Applicant
AND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent
CORAM:
TAMBERLIN J
PLACE:
SYDNEY
DATED:
30 JUNE 1997
MINUTE OF ORDERS
The Court orders that the application be 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
)
)
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
) No. NG 521 of 1996
)
GENERAL DIVISION
)
BETWEEN:
TERENCE WILLIAM JACKMAN Applicant
AND:
REPATRIATION COMMISSION Respondent
CORAM:
TAMBERLIN J
PLACE:
SYDNEY
DATED:
30 JUNE 1997
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
TAMBERLIN J:
Introduction
This is an appeal, pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth), from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”) that the applicant does not satisfy s 24(1)(c) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (“the Act”) and is therefore not eligible for a special rate of pension.
Background
The applicant was born on 6 June 1922. He is a war veteran and suffers from a number of war-caused disabilities, these include ischaemic heart disease and an anxiety state. The applicant has been in receipt of a disability pension since 1967 and a service pension since he was 60 years of age.
In October 1981 the applicant suffered a severe heart attack and was on sick leave until early 1982. Prior to this he had been working full-time as a secretary of the Queensland Confederation of Industry. In April 1982, shortly after returning to work, he obtained employment as a full time Secretary Manager of the Queensland Nursery Industry Association. The applicant had been advised by his general practitioner, Dr Shepherd, and his…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Jackman v Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jackman v Repatriation Commission [1997] FCA 564
Case
[1997] FCA 564
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal before the Court concerns the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that the applicant, Terence William Jackman, does not satisfy s 24(1)(c) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) and is therefore not eligible for a special rate of pension. The applicant, a war veteran, suffers from war-caused disabilities, including ischaemic heart disease and an anxiety state, and has been in receipt of a disability pension since 1967 and a service pension since he was 60 years of age. The applicant had worked full-time as a secretary until a severe heart attack in 1981 and subsequent medical advice to slow down or retire. He subsequently retired in 1983 and has not worked since. The applicant argued that his war-caused disabilities were the sole reason for his retirement and that there was no other intervening reason for his cessation of employment.
The legal issues before the Court were whether the AAT failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons for its decision and whether the AAT erred in its construction and application of s 24(1)(c) of the Act by concluding that the applicant did not meet the "alone test" at the date of application in 1994, when it found that he did so at the date of retirement in 1983. The applicant also argued that the AAT did not apply the correct standard of proof. The Court found that the AAT did not err in its reasoning. The AAT balanced the evidence in favour of the applicant with other relevant considerations, such as the applicant's age, time out of the workforce, retirement intentions, financial position, and family circumstances. The AAT concluded that it could not be reasonably satisfied that the applicant's war-caused disabilities alone precluded him from engaging in remunerative employment as at the date of application. The AAT's reasons were concise but sufficient to enable the applicant to understand the basis for the decision. The Court rejected the argument that the AAT applied an incorrect standard of proof, as the AAT had correctly identified the standard of proof to be applied and reached its conclusion based on the evidence before it.
The Court dismissed the appeal with costs, affirming the AAT's decision that the applicant did not satisfy s 24(1)(c) of the Act and was therefore not eligible for the special rate of pension.