Legal Research
Cases
Repatriation Commission v Flentjar

Repatriation Commission v Flentjar

Case [1997] FCA 371 13 May 1997

Jurisdiction

Judicial Review

Natural Justice & Procedural Fairness

Statutory Interpretation

Adverse Possession

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHWORDS

VETERAN’S AFFAIRS - eligibility to be paid pension at Special Rate - appeal from decision of Administrative Appeal Tribunal (‘the AAT’) - whether veteran satisfies s 24(1)(c) of the Veterans’ Entitlement Act 1986 (‘the Act’) - whether AAT failed to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to whether veteran would have worked as a taxi-driver had he been free of war-caused incapacity - failure by AAT to consider prospect of working in the assessment period had the veteran been free of his war-caused incapacities - s 119 of the Act does not permit the AAT to disregard the statutory criteria for the grant of a pension at the Special Rate.

Veteran’s Entitlement Act 1986 s 24(1)(c), s 119

Thanh v Billings (1997) 142 ALR 158 applied

REPATRIATION COMMISSION v JOHN JOSEPH FLENTJAR
No VG 827 of 1995

SPENDER J
BRISBANE (heard in Melbourne)
13 MAY 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No VG 827 OF 1995

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Applicant
AND:JOHN JOSEPH FLENTJAR
Respondent

CORAM:                   SPENDER J
PLACE:  BRISBANE (heard in Melbourne)
DATE:  13 MAY 1997

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be allowed and the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 20 September 1995 be set aside.

The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be heard and decided in accordance with law.

There be no order as to costs.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY No VG 827 of 1995

GENERAL DIVISION

BETWEEN:REPATRIATION COMMISSION
Applicant
AND:JOHN JOSEPH FLENTJAR
Respondent

CORAM:                   SPENDER J
PLACE:  BRISBANE (heard in Melbourne)
DATE:  13 MAY 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This application by the Repatriation Commission (‘the Commission’) is an appeal pursuant to s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (‘the AAT Act’) from part of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the AAT’) made on 20 September 1995. The AAT ordered that pursuant to s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (‘the Act’), the respondent, John Joseph Flentjar (‘Mr Flentjar’), was eligible to be paid a pension at the Special Rate under s 24 of the Act from 15 September 1992.

By consent, the AAT also decided to set aside the decision of the Commission dated 28 April 1992 and it substituted the decision that adenocarcinoma of the colon was “war-caused” within the meaning in s 9 of the Act. In respect of that incapacity, the AAT found that the Commonwealth was liable to pay a pension in accordance with Division II of Part 2 of the Act from 15 September 1992.

This appeal is confined to the question of whether the decision to grant Mr Flentjar a pension at the Special Rate was affected by legal error. It was common ground before the AAT that Mr Flentjar satisfied paras 24(1)(a) and 24(1)(b) of the Act: his degree of incapacity had been determined under s 21A at…

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 Flentjar

Details

AGLC: Repatriation Commission v Flentjar [1997] FCA 371
Case: [1997] FCA 371
Decision Date: 13 May 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Repatriation Commission, acting as the applicant, appealed a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which held that John Joseph Flentjar was eligible for a pension at the Special Rate under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. The appeal was limited to whether the AAT had erred in determining that Mr Flentjar satisfied the statutory criteria for the grant of such a pension. Specifically, the Commission argued that the AAT failed to properly consider whether Mr Flentjar would have worked as a taxi driver if he had not been incapacitated by war-related injuries.

The legal issues before the court involved interpreting the statutory provisions of the Veterans' Entitlements Act, specifically section 24(1)(c), which requires that the veteran be prevented from continuing remunerative work by their war-caused incapacity alone. The court had to determine whether the AAT appropriately assessed the hypothetical scenario of Mr Flentjar's employment prospects if he had not been incapacitated, and whether the AAT's conclusion was legally sound.

The Federal Court found that the AAT had not properly assessed the hypothetical scenario required by section 24(1)(c) of the Act. The AAT had considered Mr Flentjar's medical capacity to drive a taxi but failed to assess the likelihood that he would have actually returned to work as a taxi driver given his age, the time elapsed since he last worked, and other relevant factors. The court held that the AAT’s decision did not reflect a proper, genuine, and realistic consideration of the statutory criteria, as required by the Act. Moreover, the court noted that section 119 of the Act, which directs the AAT to act according to substantial justice, does not permit the disregard of statutory criteria. The appeal was thus allowed, and the decision of the AAT was set aside, with the matter to be remitted back to the AAT for reconsideration in accordance with the law.

Orders