PAULINE FRANKS and and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 247

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2008/3353

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		PAULINE FRANKS

Applicant

And PRINCIPAL MEMBER OF THE VETERANS' REVIEW BOARD

Respondent

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Joined Party

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis

Date16 April 2009

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The Tribunal refuses to grant an extension of the time for making the application to review the decision therein referred to.

(Signed)
  D G Jarvis
  Deputy President

10.     The letter went on to say that in the latter part of 2006 an authorisation and Form 2 were filled out by Mrs Franks and sent to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and to her previous advocate.  It also referred to other matters, including her late husband’s service for 20 years in the RAN including service during the Vietnam War, her own service in the RAN, and her husband’s belief that she was entitled to the pension she was claiming.  I infer that whilst the above letter was sent to Mr Horan, it was in the form of a submission by Mrs Franks that she intended to be placed before the Principal Member and this tribunal in support of the application for an extension of time.

11.     It appears likely from the copy Form 2 (Authorisation under Section 155AC) that Mrs Franks was mistaken when she said in her letter of 13 October 2008 that she had sent that authorisation to the delegate.  In the first section of that form Mrs Franks nominates Mr Horan to represent her, and this section is signed by her and dated 20 May 2008.  It seems more likely that Mrs Franks then sent the form not to the delegate as she says in her letter to Mr Horan, but to Mr Horan, because the second section of the form is signed by him and dated 16 June 2008, and the form is stamped as having been received by the VRB on 20 June 2008.  I also note that the letter of 16 May 2008 from the delegate to Mrs Franks states expressly that the Form 2 should not be sent back to the delegate, but should be given to the person who had been authorised to represent her.

Legislation

12.     The VE Act provides for applications to be made to the VRB to review decisions of the Repatriation Commission.  Section 155AA(1) of the VE Act refers to a “standard review period”, being the period of two years after the day on which an application was received by the VRB.

13.     Section 155AA(4), empowers the Principal Registrar, where hearings have not been finished within the standard review period, to give a written notice requesting the applicant to provide, within 28 days, a written statement either indicating that the applicant is ready to proceed at a hearing, or explaining why the applicant is not ready to proceed.  It provides as follows:

“(4)     If, at the end of the standard review period:

(a)       this…