Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 639
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2008/1837
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re MICHAEL JOHN BELLAMY Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Brigadier C Ermert (Retd), Member Date27 August 2009
PlaceMelbourne
Decision
The decision under review is affirmed.
(sgd) C Ermert
Member
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS ‑ operational service – accepted impairment rating of 90% - accepted war-caused disabilities of plantar fasciitis – whether qualified for special rate - four Flentjar questions – type of remunerative work – whether prevented from continuing work by war-caused conditions –ss 24(1)(b), 23 and 24 of the Act not satisfied– not entitled to disability pension at the Intermediate or Special Rate – decision affirmed.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 23, 24, 120
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1
Chambers v Repatriation Commission (1995) 36 ALD 207
Repatriation Commission v Buckingham, Federal Court, 7 February 1996, 153/1994
REASONS FOR DECISION
27 August 2009
Brigadier C Ermert (Retd), Member
INTRODUCTION
1. Mr Michael John Bellamy, the applicant, was born in 1945 and he is 64 years old. He left secondary school in Malta at the age of 17½ and moved to Australia in 1962. Mr Bellamy worked for approximately four months as a storeman in a warehouse and then worked in the real estate sales industry until he enlisted in the Australian Army. Mr Bellamy served in the Army from 1965 to 1967, including a period in the Far East Strategic Reserve (Malaya), which the respondent has accepted as meeting the requirements of operational service as defined in the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).
2. Since his discharge from the Army Mr Bellamy has worked as a sales representative in a number of industries, involving sales to markets in Australia and overseas. He has also run an import and export business in furniture and pottery, established a business importing and selling hosiery wholesale, and, with his daughter, established a business providing internet web design services. Mr Bellamy has also driven hire cars and limousines.
3. Mr Bellamy’s last paid employment was as a sales representative in the carpet industry. On 22 March 2004 he commenced full time employment with Drills Swan Street (Auctions) & Sales (Drills). Mr Bellamy was initially working an average of 45 hours per week. He moved to casual employment for eight and a half hours per week on 16 March 2005 and he resigned from Drills on 15 March 2006. Mr Bellamy then undertook part-time work of eight hours a week spread over three days at AAA Simon Carpets (Simon). Mr Bellamy ceased work with Simon on 19 January 2007 and has not worked since.
4.Mr Bellamy was granted a service pension in February 2005.
5. Mr Bellamy has a number of medical conditions which the Repatriation Commission (the respondent) accepted were war-caused. On 4 May 2006 the respondent accepted that his plantar fasciitis and gastro-oesophageal reflux disease were war-caused and increased his disability pension to 50%…
Continue reading MICHAEL JOHN BELLAMY and REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- MICHAEL JOHN BELLAMY and REPATRIATION COMMISSION [2009] AATA 639
- Case
- [2009] AATA 639
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence and submissions presented by both parties. It found that the Repatriation Commission had correctly applied the relevant legislation and had a reasonable basis for its findings. The court was satisfied that the Commission had considered all relevant material and that there were no procedural errors. Consequently, the court upheld the decision of the Commission. The reasoning was grounded in a detailed analysis of the evidence and the legal standards applicable to the case.
Given the court's findings, the decision under review was affirmed. This means that Bellamy's appeal was dismissed, and the original decision of the Repatriation Commission stood. The court's decision was based on a thorough review of the evidence and an application of the relevant legal principles.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review 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.