PFLQ and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by PFLQ (the applicant) for a service pension at the single rate, having previously received it at the partnered rate. The dispute arose because the applicant, who was a member of a couple, sought to be treated as not a member of a couple for the purposes of the Act, due to alleged financial hardship. The decision was made by Deputy J W Constance P.

The legal issue before the court was whether there was any "special reason" to determine that the applicant, who had agreed he was a member of a couple since 1 July 2014, should not be treated as such for the purpose of calculating his service pension rate. The applicant contended that the financial hardship he was experiencing constituted such a special reason under subsection 5R(3) of the Act.

The court considered the applicant's stated weekly income and expenses, noting that his pension payments were $934 per week after deductions for overpayments. It also took into account that his partner received a pension of $335 per week, meaning their combined weekly income exceeded their stated weekly expenses. The court found that the applicant's significant assets, including substantial equity in his home and a motor vehicle, along with his consistent ability to pay off his credit card debt monthly and make cash deposits into a joint account, did not indicate financial hardship amounting to a special reason. The court concluded that the applicant's current financial situation did not meet the threshold for special circumstances under the Act.

The reviewable decision, which determined that the applicant was to be paid a service pension at the partnered rate from 1 July 2014, was affirmed.