Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1000
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2003/958
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re LESLIE JOHN KELLY Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms G Ettinger, Senior Member
Dr P Lynch, MemberDate24 September 2004
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision of the Veterans’ Review Board is affirmed. Ms G Ettinger
Senior Member
(b) the veteran's incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is, of itself alone, of such a nature as to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work otherwise than on a part-time basis or intermittently; and
(c) the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free from that incapacity; and
(d) section 24 or 25 does not apply to the veteran.
(2) Paragraph (1)(b) shall not be taken to be fulfilled in respect of a veteran who is undertaking, or is capable of undertaking, work of a particular kind:
(a) if the veteran undertakes, or is capable of undertaking, that work for 50 per centum or more of the time (excluding overtime) ordinarily worked by persons engaged in work of that kind on a full-time basis; or
(b) in a case where paragraph (a) is inapplicable to the work which the veteran is undertaking or capable of undertaking—if the veteran is undertaking, or is capable of undertaking, that work for 20 or more hours per week.
(3) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(c):
(a) a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, to the extent set out in paragraph (1)(b) shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity:
(i) if the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both;
(ii) if the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; or
(iii) if the veteran has been engaged in remunerative work on a part-time basis or intermittently for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both; and
…”
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
6. Oral evidence was given by Mr Kelly and Drs A Hordern and R Haik, both psychiatrists, who gave concurrent evidence. The Tribunal had before it various documents taken into evidence and marked as Exhibits to which it shall refer in the course of these reasons for decision.
evidence of the applicant mr kelly
7. Mr Kelly whose date of birth is 13 June 1949 gave evidence before the Tribunal. He said that he was…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kelly and Repatriation Commission and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] AATA 1000
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues that the Court was required to address included the interpretation of the term "incapacity to work" as defined in section 23 of the Act, and the consideration of credit issues raised by the Applicant regarding her circumstances. The Court had to determine whether the Board's decision was legally sound in light of the evidence provided and the applicable statutory provisions. Moreover, the Court needed to assess whether the Board appropriately balanced the Applicant's capacity to work against her need for pension support.
In reaching its decision, the Court closely examined the evidence presented to the Board and the reasoning employed in the Board's decision. The Court found that the Board had correctly interpreted the statutory criteria and had given due consideration to the Applicant's ability to work. The Court also noted that the Board had appropriately weighed the credit issues raised by the Applicant. Consequently, the Court determined that the Board's decision was justified and affirmed the decision of the Veterans' Review Board. The Applicant's appeal was dismissed, and the decision to award her an intermediate rate pension was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision of the Veterans’ Review Board 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.