Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 640
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/6038
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re NEIL COLIN COSTER Applicant
And
REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Brigadier C Ermert (Retd), Member
Dr K. Breen, MemberDate27 August 2009
PlaceMelbourne
Decision
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that Mr Coster is entitled to be paid a disability pension at the Special Rate with the date of effect of 13 July 2006.
(sgd)
C. Ermert, Member
VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – operational service – accepted impairment rating of 100 per cent – accepted war-caused disabilities of PTSD and alcohol dependence or abuse – whether qualified for special rate – four Flentjar questions – type of remunerative work – whether prevented from continuing work by war-caused conditions – whether other factors affect the continuation of remunerative work – s.24 of the Act satisfied – qualified for disability pension at Special Rate – decision set aside
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 ss 23, 24
Repatriation Legislation Amendment Bill 1985
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission (1997) 48 ALD 1
Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424
Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534
Repatriation Commission v Braund (1991) 23 ALD 591
REASONS FOR DECISION
27 August 2009 Brigadier C. Ermert (Retd), Member
Dr K. Breen, Member
INTRODUCTION
1. Mr Coster, the applicant, left school at the age of 16 after attaining an Intermediate Certificate. He then completed a five year apprenticeship as a fitter-machinist after which he commenced national training service with the Australian Army. Mr Coster completed a period of service in Vietnam. The respondent has accepted that period of service as constituting operational service for the purposes of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act).
2. Following his discharge from the Army, Mr Coster worked at the Ammunition Factory at Footscray until it closed in 1994. Mr Coster worked for 10 months managing a laundry at Box Hill before securing a position as factory manager at Ultra Furniture (Ultra), closer to his home at Maidstone. Ultra changed hands in 2001. Conflict developed between Mr Coster and the new owner and he was put off work. Mr Coster next obtained a position as production/factory manager with Hufcor Pty Ltd (Hufcor) involving duties similar to his previous position. After six months problems developed, similar to those at Ultra. In October 2005 Mr Coster was made redundant from Hufcor. Since then Mr Coster has looked for work through Centrelink and by perusing the newspapers. He has applied for positions but the applications have not led to interviews or offers of employment.
3. Prior to February 2007 Mr Coster was receiving a disability pension at 70 per cent of the General Rate in respect of a number of war-caused conditions. On 17 February 2007 Mr Coster submitted a claim to the Repatriation Commission (the respondent) for his adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood to be accepted as a war-caused condition. The application was refused…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read NEIL COLIN COSTER 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
- [2009] AATA 640
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined whether the Commission correctly interpreted and applied the criteria for awarding a disability pension at the Special Rate, particularly focusing on the requirement of total and permanent incapacity due to a service-connected injury. The court also needed to determine if the Commission appropriately considered all relevant evidence, including medical reports and the impact of the injury on Coster's ability to work. The analysis involved a detailed review of the evidence provided and the Commission's reasoning in arriving at its decision.
In its reasoning, the court found that the Commission had not adequately considered the totality of the evidence and had misapplied the criteria for determining special rate pension eligibility. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was not supported by the evidence and was therefore unlawful. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the Commission’s decision and determined that Coster is entitled to be paid a disability pension at the Special Rate, with the effective date of 13 July 2006. This outcome ensures that Coster receives the benefits he is entitled to based on the correct interpretation and application of the relevant laws and policies.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes the decision that Mr Coster is entitled to be paid a disability pension at the Special Rate with the date of effect of 13 July 2006.
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.