FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Repatriation Commission v Woodall [2015] FCA 1267
Citation: Repatriation Commission v Woodall [2015] FCA 1267 Appeal from: Woodall v Repatriation Commission [2015] AATA 163 Parties: REPATRIATION COMMISSION v MAXWELL JOHN WOODALL File number: VID 205 of 2015 Judge: TRACEY J Date of judgment: 20 November 2015 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that veteran entitled to payment at the special rate under s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal erred in its construction of s 24(2)(b) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) by requiring a “liberal and beneficial” approach to the extent and nature of the veteran’s war-caused injuries – whether the Tribunal erred in determining that the veteran’s war-caused injuries were the “substantial cause” of his inability to obtain remunerative work Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), ss 24, 24(1)(c), 24(2)(b)Cases cited: Australian Education Union v Department of Education and Children’s Services (2012) 248 CLR 1 – cited
Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534 – cited
Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280 – cited
Commissioner of Taxation v Unit Trend Services Pty Ltd (2013) 250 CLR 523 – cited
Fox v Repatriation Commission (1997) 45 ALD 317 – cited
Haritos v Commissioner of Taxation (2015) 322 ALR 254 – cited
Hill v Repatriation Commission (2004) 82 ALD 60 – cited
May v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (2015) 322 ALR 330 – cited
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 – cited
Repatriation Commission v Richmond (2014) 226 FCR 21 – cited
Smith v Repatriation Commission (2014) 220 FCR 452 – considered
Woodall v Repatriation Commission [2015] AATA 163 – citedDate of hearing: 4 November 2015 Place: Melbourne Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 41 Counsel for the Applicant: Ms Z Maud Solicitor for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor Counsel for the Respondent: Ms F Ryan Solicitor for the Respondent: Williams Winter
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 205 of 2015
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
ApplicantAND: MAXWELL JOHN WOODALL
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE OF ORDER:
20 NOVEMBER 2015
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
VID 205 of 2015
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: REPATRIATION COMMISSION
ApplicantAND: MAXWELL JOHN WOODALL
Respondent
JUDGE:
TRACEY J
DATE:
20 NOVEMBER 2015
PLACE:
MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) raises a number of issues relating to the construction and application of s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). The Tribunal determined that Mr Woodall was entitled…
Continue reading Repatriation Commission v Woodall
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Repatriation Commission v Woodall [2015] FCA 1267
- Case
- [2015] FCA 1267
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Repatriation Commission v Woodall, the Federal Court was asked to review a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning a payment entitlement under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether the AAT had correctly interpreted section 24(2)(b) of the Act, specifically whether it required a "liberal and beneficial" approach in assessing the extent and nature of the veteran’s war-caused injuries. The secondary issue was whether the AAT was correct in finding that Mr Woodall’s war-caused injuries were the "substantial cause" of his inability to obtain remunerative work.
The Court examined the statutory provisions and the AAT’s interpretation, noting that the statutory language did not explicitly require a "liberal and beneficial" approach. The Court found that the AAT’s approach was consistent with the legislative intent to ensure that veterans are not unfairly disadvantaged due to their war-caused injuries. In terms of the "substantial cause" determination, the Court concluded that the AAT had appropriately balanced the evidence and circumstances, finding that Mr Woodall’s war-caused injuries were indeed a substantial cause of his inability to obtain employment. The Court upheld the AAT’s decision, rejecting the Commission’s appeal and ordering that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
The orders of the Court were straightforward: the appeal brought by the Repatriation Commission was dismissed, and the costs of the appeal were to be borne by the Commission. The decision underscores the importance of a nuanced interpretation of statutory provisions in administrative law, particularly in the context of veterans’ entitlements.
The Court examined the statutory provisions and the AAT’s interpretation, noting that the statutory language did not explicitly require a "liberal and beneficial" approach. The Court found that the AAT’s approach was consistent with the legislative intent to ensure that veterans are not unfairly disadvantaged due to their war-caused injuries. In terms of the "substantial cause" determination, the Court concluded that the AAT had appropriately balanced the evidence and circumstances, finding that Mr Woodall’s war-caused injuries were indeed a substantial cause of his inability to obtain employment. The Court upheld the AAT’s decision, rejecting the Commission’s appeal and ordering that the appeal be dismissed with costs.
The orders of the Court were straightforward: the appeal brought by the Repatriation Commission was dismissed, and the costs of the appeal were to be borne by the Commission. The decision underscores the importance of a nuanced interpretation of statutory provisions in administrative law, particularly in the context of veterans’ entitlements.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Relevantly s 24 provides that:“(1)This section applies to a veteran if:(aa) …(b) the veteran is totally and permanently incapacitated, that is to say, the veteran’s incapacity from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, is of such a nature as, of itself alone, to render the veteran incapable of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and(c) the veteran is, by reason of incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, alone, prevented from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking and is, by reason thereof, suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, that the veteran would not be suffering if the veteran were free of that incapacity; and…(2) For the purpose of paragraph (1)(c):(a) a veteran who is incapacitated from war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both, shall not be taken to be suffering a loss of salary or wages, or of earnings on his or her own account, by reason of that incapacity if:(i) the veteran has ceased to engage in remunerative work for reasons other than his or her incapacity from that war-caused injury or war-caused disease, or both; or(ii) the veteran is incapacitated, or prevented, from engaging in remunerative work for some other reason; and(b) where a veteran, not being a veteran who has attained the age of 65 years, who has not been engaged in remunerative work satisfies the Commission that he or she has been genuinely seeking to engage in remunerative work, that he or she would, but for that incapacity, be continuing so to seek to engage in remunerative work and that that incapacity is the substantial cause of his or her inability to obtain remunerative work in which to engage, the veteran shall be treated as having been prevented by reason of that incapacity from continuing to undertake remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking.”THE TRIBUNAL’S DECISION The evidence before the Tribunal was, to a large extent, uncontroversial. Mr Woodall had, for some 11 years, been employed as a warehouse manager. In October 2008 his position was made redundant and his employment was terminated. Between October 2008 and September 2009 he had applied for about 70 jobs which he had seen advertised in newspapers. He had received only five responses. Of these five only three prospective employers invited him to attend for interview. Mr Woodall gave uncontested evidence that he had performed badly during these interviews. He told the Tribunal that:“… I had difficulty focusing due to concentration issues which relate to my anxiety disorder. I did not respond well to questions in the interview situation. Additionally, I disclosed to the potential employers my back problems after I was questioned on whether I had medical issues. It is my belief that my back condition was a significant reason why I was not offered employment by those who interviewed me. I also believe that my inability to interview well was also a real factor.”
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.