Jensen and Repatriation Commission

Case [2009] AATA 353


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

Details
AGLC
Jensen and Repatriation Commission [2009] AATA 353
Case
[2009] AATA 353
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jensen appealed against a decision of the Repatriation Commission, which had rejected his claim for compensation. The dispute was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Commission had correctly interpreted the relevant legislative provisions in rejecting the claim. Specifically, the court had to determine whether certain medical conditions suffered by Jensen were service-connected, which would entitle him to compensation.

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.