Spek and Repatriation Commission

[2005] AATA 756

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 756

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2002/784

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		TONY SPEK

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Dr KS Levy, Member

Date9 August 2005  

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal finds that:

(a)     The applicant suffers from the conditions of Borderline Personality Disorder  and Generalised Anxiety Disorder  (not defence caused); and the applicant suffers from Dysthymia (defence caused); and

(b) Notwithstanding the findings in (a) above, the decision under review is affirmed as section 70(9) of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 operates to prohibit Mr Spek from compensation for his condition of Dysthymia.

..............................................

Member

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)No Q2002/784

VETERANS’ APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		TONY SPEK

Applicant

And REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

CORRIGENDUM

Tribunal Dr KS Levy, Member

Date4 January 2006

PlaceBrisbane

I DIRECT that:

(a)paragraph 23 of the Tribunal’s reasons for decision as presently numbered be amended so that the second last sentence reads:

“In other words, the fact that it was on the official record, it could not be removed.”;

(b)paragraph 80 of the Tribunal’s reasons for decision as presently numbered be amended so that the word “Re” in Re Measures and Repatriation Commission (2003) AATA 909 be removed and that the words “the comments” appearing in the next sentence be removed; and

(c)that the reasons for decision should commence at paragraph 1 and not at paragraph 2 as presently shown.

KS Levy

Member

CATCHWORDS

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS – s70(9)Veteran’s Entitlement Act – Borderline Personality Disorder – Dysthymia – defence caused injury – depressive disorder – personality disorder – anxiety disorder – decision affirmed.

Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986
Defence Force Discipline Act 1982
Army Act 1880 (UK).

Benjamin v Repatriation Commission (2003) 70 ALD 622
Repatriation Commission V Hancock (2003) FCA 711
Fogarty & Repatriation Commission (2003) FCAFC 136
Lees and Repatriation Commission (2002) 125 FCR 331
White v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 633
Hillier and Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 897.
Stonehouse v Repatriation Commission [2004] AATA 707
Repatriation Commission v Law (1980) 31 ALR 140 at 149).

Repatriation Commission v Stoddart [2003] FCA 334

Re Nelson and Repatriation Commission (1988) 15 ALD 49

Re Lester and Repatriation Commission (1991) 23 ALD 69
McPherson v Repatriation Commission (1989) 87 ALR 275
Repatriation Commission v Levi (1994) 61 FCR 189
Re Measures and Repatriation Commission (2003) AATA 909.

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 August 2005   Dr KS Levy, Member

2. The applicant, Tony Spek, has applied under section 29(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 for review of a decision of the Veteran’s Review Board dated 18 June 2002.

3. That decision made a finding of a diagnosis of anxiety disorder but affirmed the rest of the original decision which determined that spondylolisthesis at L5/S1 and depressive disorder were not defence caused within the meaning of section 70 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (the Act). 

4. On 28 June 2004, the application withdrew the aspect…