Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 353
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/1901
VETERANS' APPEAL DIVISION ) Re IAN PAUL JENSEN Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr B H Pascoe, Senior Member Date15 May 2009
PlaceMelbourne
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
(sgd) B H Pascoe
Senior Member
veterans’ – application for special rate or intermediate rate of pension – war-caused disabilities – whether capable of undertaking remunerative work – number of hours capable of working – whether war-caused injuries alone prevent undertaking remunerative work – whether ceased for reasons other than incapacity from war‑caused injury – whether genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 s 23, s 24
REASONS FOR DECISION
15 May 2009 Mr B H Pascoe, Senior Member 1. This is an application to review a decision of the respondent of 26 June 2006 which refused an application to increase the rate of pension to either the special or intermediate rate. This decision was affirmed by the Veterans’ Review Board (VRB) on 17 April 2007.
2. At the hearing, the applicant, Mr I Jensen, was represented by Mr D De Marchi, a solicitor. The respondent was represented by Ms J McCulloch, an advocate with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Evidence was given by Mr Jensen, his son Mr B Jensen, an occupational physician, Dr C Castle and a psychologist, Mr M Burge.
3. Mr Jensen has accepted disabilities of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, solar keratoses and asthma. He is entitled to a disability pension at 100 per cent of the general rate. The issue for the Tribunal is whether he is entitled to an increase in that pension to either the special or intermediate rate pursuant to s 23 or s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. (the Act)
4. Mr Jensen was born on 7 June 1949 and was age 57 as at the date of the decision under review. He served in the Australian Army and rendered operational service from 9 July 1970 to 8 July 1971. Prior to him being called up for National Service in 1969 he had commenced employment as a bank clerk with the Commonwealth Bank. After discharge in 1971 he resumed work with the Commonwealth Bank. Initially he was at the Coburg branch as a general clerk then became a relieving officer and auditor, savings bank supervisor at Preston, accountant at Ascot Vale, assistant manager Ascot Vale, manager Regent West and Manager Eltham branch. In 1994 he was offered and accepted a redundancy package.
5. Mr Jensen maintained that, during the whole of his 23 years service with the bank, he continued to drink excessively both at lunch time and in the evening. He said that, while his performance may not have been as good as it should have been, the drinking did not create any major problem with the bank. He said that there…
Continue reading Jensen and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Jensen and Repatriation Commission [2009] AATA 353
- Case
- [2009] AATA 353
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In examining the legislative framework and the evidence presented, the court found that the Commission had correctly interpreted the law and applied it to the facts of the case. The court held that the Commission was entitled to consider the totality of the evidence and to make findings about the service-connected nature of the conditions. The Tribunal concluded that the Commission's decision was reasonable and in accordance with the law. The Tribunal found that there was no basis to interfere with the decision of the Commission, affirming their original determination.
Accordingly, the Tribunal dismissed Jensen's appeal and affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory interpretation of the relevant provisions and a careful review of the evidence. The outcome confirmed the Commission's authority to make findings on service-connected conditions and upheld the integrity of their decision-making process.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
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.