NEIL COLIN COSTER and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

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, Member

Date27 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…

CaseChat AU logo

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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2009] AATA 640
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Neil Colin Coster sought review of a decision made by the Repatriation Commission which determined that he was not entitled to a disability pension at the Special Rate. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with assessing the merits of this review. The central legal issue that the court needed to decide was whether the Commission's decision was lawful, reasonable, and based on the correct application of the relevant legislative provisions and policies.

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.