McDermid v Repatriation Commission

Case [2016] FCA 372


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

McDermid v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCA 372

File number: QUD 55 of 2015
Judge: LOGAN J
Date of judgment: 15 April 2016
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – veterans’ affairs – veterans’ entitlements – incapacity arising out of defence caused injury – pension payable under s 74 Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – where applicant has multiple defence caused injuries – where compensation is payable in respect of same incapacity but only some not all of the same injuries as are defence caused – whether Commission should reduce special rate of pension in light of compensation payment – Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 71, 74(2), 74(2)(a), 74(2)(b); Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s19
Legislation:

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 23(b)

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) s 39

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 39B

Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 (Cth)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 19, 23(1), 24

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) ss 3, 5(D), 5(D)(2)(b), 13, 14, 19, 21A, 22, 24, 24(1)(c), 28, 30C(1)(b), 30C(1)(c), 70, 71, 71(2), 71(3), 71(4), 73, 74, 74(2), 74(2)(a), 74(2)(b), 74(3), 74(8)

Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment Act 2011 (Cth)

Cases cited:

Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27

Commonwealth v Smith (2009) 180 FCR 569

Commonwealth of Australia v Quince (1944) 68 CLR 227

Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297

Gauntlett v Repatriation Commission (1991) 32 FCR 73

Hobbs v Repatriation Commission (2002) 124 FCR 151

McDermid v Repatriation Commission [2011] AATA 834

Repatriation Commission v Law (1981) 147 CLR 635

Date of hearing: 5 April 2016
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 78
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Harding
Solicitor for the Applicant: Woods Prince Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr P Hanks QC with Ms E Ford
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

QUD 55 of 2015
BETWEEN:

WILLIAM JOHN MCDERMID

Applicant

AND:

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

JUDGE:

LOGAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

15 APRIL 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The parties are to provide short minutes of orders to give effect to the judgment.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

LOGAN J:

  1. Mr William McDermid, the applicant in this proceeding, was a member of the Royal Australian Navy for two decades, from 26 November 1965 to 25 November 1985.

  2. For the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (the VEA), Mr McDermid’s naval service fell into the following categories established under that Act:

    (a)operational service - on HMAS Supply from 24 March 1966 to 11 May 1966 and from 26 May 1966 to 26 June 1966;

    (b)further operational service - in Vietnam from 19 September 1968 to 12 April 1969, and

    (c)eligible defence service from 7 December 1972 to 25 November 1985.

  3. At common law,…

Continue reading McDermid v Repatriation Commission

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
McDermid v Repatriation Commission [2016] FCA 372
Case
[2016] FCA 372
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McDermid brought an action against the Repatriation Commission, challenging the Commission's decision to reduce the special rate of pension payable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) based on compensation received for incapacity arising from defence caused injuries. The applicant had multiple defence caused injuries, for which compensation was payable under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). However, the compensation was only payable in respect of the same incapacity but not all of the same injuries as were defence caused. The applicant argued that the Commission should not reduce the special rate of pension in light of the compensation payment.

The court had to decide whether the Commission should reduce the special rate of pension in light of the compensation payment received by the applicant. The court examined the relevant provisions of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The court considered the interplay between the two Acts and whether the compensation payment affected the pension payable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth).

The court found that the compensation payment did not affect the pension payable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The court held that the Commission was not entitled to reduce the special rate of pension in light of the compensation payment. The court found that the provisions of the two Acts were to be read together and that the compensation payment did not constitute a reduction in the incapacity arising out of the defence caused injuries. The court held that the compensation payment was not a payment for the same incapacity as the pension payable under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth).

The court ordered that the parties are to provide short minutes of orders to give effect to the judgment. The entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The parties are to provide short minutes of orders to give effect to the judgment.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.