Repatriation Commission v Buckingham - [1996] FCA 37

CATCHWORDS

Defence and War Veterans' entitlements - Disability pension - Eligibility for pension at intermediate rate - Meaning of "remunerative work" - whether there was evidence of veteran's incapacity to undertake remunerative work - Factors relevant to assessment of claimed incapacity - Whether reference to "open [labour] market" entailed regard to matter made impermissible by s.28 - Whether evidence to support finding that veteran incapable of working 20 hours per week - whether evidence to support finding that veteran's cessation of remunerative work had been due to war-caused incapacity alone and not partly to religious commitment - Whether veteran incapacitated to undertake remunerative work - (Cth) Veterans' Entitlement Act 1986 ss 23 and 28

Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss 23 and 28

Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 7 FCR 302

Chambers v Repatriation Commission (1995) 55 FCR 9

Althorpe v Repatriation Commission (1987) 77 ALR 42

Freeman v Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Authority (1985) AAR 116

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Raptis (1990) 19 ALD 276

Lombardo v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979) 40 FLR 208

Repatriation Commission v Strickland (1990) 12 AAR 343

REPATRIATION COMMISSION v ALAN GEORGE BUCKINGHAM

No QG 153 of 1994

Ryan J
Melbourne
7 February 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY      )    QG 153 of 1994
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                  )

On appeal from the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Mr D W Muller, Senior Member, Brigadier T R Gibson, Member, and Dr G S Urquhart, Member

BETWEEN: REPATRIATION COMMISSION

(Applicant)

AND: ALAN GEORGE BUCKINGHAM

(Respondent)

CORAM:    Ryan J
PLACE:    Melbourne (Heard in Brisbane)
DATE:     7 February 1996

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS:

That the application be dismissed.

That the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application, such costs to be taxed.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in O.36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY      )    QG 153 of 1994
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                  )

On appeal from the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Mr D W Muller, Senior Member, Brigadier T R Gibson, Member, and Dr G S Urquhart, Member

BETWEEN: REPATRIATION COMMISSION

(Applicant)

AND: ALAN GEORGE BUCKINGHAM

(Respondent)

CORAM:    Ryan J
PLACE:    Melbourne (Heard in Brisbane)
DATE:     7 February 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

RYAN J: This is an appeal from a decision of the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal") given on 8 September 1994, whereby the Tribunal decided to vary a decision of the Veterans' Review Board and, with it, an earlier decision of the Repatriation Commission.

The Tribunal substituted for the earlier decisions a finding to the effect that certain gastric and spinal disabilities suffered by the respondent to this appeal, Alan George Buckingham, were war-caused injuries within the meaning of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (the "Act"). The Tribunal further decided that…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Repatriation Commission v Buckingham

Details

AGLC: Repatriation Commission v Buckingham [1996] FCA 37
Case: [1996] FCA 37
Decision Date: 7 FEBRUARY 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by the Repatriation Commission against a decision of the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that Mr Alan George Buckingham, a veteran, was entitled to a disability pension at the intermediate rate under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The Court found that the Tribunal had not erred in law in deciding that Mr Buckingham satisfied the requirements of s.23 of the Act, which sets out the criteria for eligibility for the intermediate rate of pension. The Court found that the Tribunal had correctly considered the relevant factors, including Mr Buckingham's vocational skills and experience, the types of remunerative work which a person with his skills might reasonably undertake, and the degree to which his war-caused injuries had reduced his capacity to engage in such work. The Court also found that there was evidence to support the Tribunal's finding that Mr Buckingham's war-caused incapacity alone had prevented him from undertaking remunerative work of the kind which he had in the past. The Court dismissed the appeal with costs.

Orders