Stadoliukas and Repatriation Commission - [2003] AATA 565

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 565
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2001/57

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )

Re ANTANAS JANIS STADOLIUKAS

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member
Dr J D Campbell, Member
Date17 June 2003
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.

...............................................
Ms S M Bullock Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS - Special Rate
LEGISLATION
Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 ss 23, 24, 28
AUTHORITIES
Briginshaw v Briginshawand Another (1938) 60 CLR 336
Carter v Repatriation Commission (2001) 113 FCR 314
REASONS FOR DECISION

17 June 2003   Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member
  Dr J D Campbell, Member

1.      This is an application for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") by the Applicant, Mr Antanas Janis Stadoliukas, of a decision of the Veterans' Review Board ("the Board") which on 5 December 2000 (T78), set aside the decision of the Respondent, the Repatriation Commission ("the Commission") dated 24 March 2000 (T63), substituting its decision that pension be assessed at 90 per cent of the General Rate to operate from and including 25 March 1996 and at 100 per cent of the General Rate to operate from and including 24 March 2000. The Commission's decision was that Mr Stadoliukas' pension be reduced from the Special Rate to 90 per cent of the General Rate with effect from and including 25 March 1996.
2. A Hearing was held in Sydney on 17 April 2002 and 18 April 2002 and resumed on 28 November 2002. Mr Stadoliukas was represented by Mr N Dawson of Counsel and the Respondent was represented by Miss R Henderson of Counsel. Oral evidence was provided by Mr Stadoliukas, Mrs Stadoliukas, Mr SG Powell and Detective Senior Constable B Parker. Documents were lodged and taken into evidence pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“T Documents”, T1-T82) and the following exhibits:

Exhibit

Description

Date

A1

Report by Dr M Burns, Occupational Physician

25 March 2002

A2

Statement by Mr Antanas Stadoliukas

Letter to Ms Stadoliukas from Mr Antanas Stadoliukas

15 March 2001

Undated

A3

Letter to Ms Stadoliukas from Mrs Sonja Stadoliukas

Undated

A4

Statutory Declaration from Mr Antanas Stadoliukas

Undated

A5

Statutory Declaration from Mr Barry McKay

Undated

A6

Letter to Mr Stadoliukas from the Vietnam Veterans’ Counselling Service and attachment

7 June 2000

A7

Letter to Mr Stadoliukas from Dr RE Rae

16 May 2000

A8

Letter from Auto Group Commercial NSW

3 May 2000

A9

Summary of programs attended by Mr Stadoliukas

Undated

A10

Two Certificates of attendance from Vietnam Veterans’ Counselling Service for Mr Antanas and Mrs Sonja Stadoliukas

7-11 December 1998

A11

Report from Lyonswood Investigation Service

28 September 2001

A12

Document entitled "Unfair dismissal – Summary of Outcome"

Undated

A13

Copy of wage records for Mr Stadoliukas and letter

13 September 2000

A14

Minute from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and Attachment

18 April 2002

A15

Documents from Raine &…

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 Stadoliukas and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Stadoliukas and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 565
Case: [2003] AATA 565
Decision Date: 17 June 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stadoliukas and Repatriation Commission, the parties involved were Stadoliukas, the appellant, and the Repatriation Commission, the respondent. The dispute centred on the entitlement of Stadoliukas to a special rate under veterans' affairs. This case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant sought to challenge the respondent's decision to deny him a special rate under the relevant legislation.

The primary legal issue the court was required to address was whether Stadoliukas's condition met the criteria for a special rate as outlined in the applicable legislation. The court had to consider the statutory definitions and precedents that defined the entitlement to such a rate. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the evidence presented regarding the nature and extent of Stadoliukas's condition and determine if it warranted the special rate.

The court's reasoning involved a detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and the evidence provided by both parties. It examined whether the appellant's condition fulfilled the necessary criteria for the special rate, including the severity and impact on his daily living. The court concluded that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that Stadoliukas's condition met the statutory requirements for the special rate. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the Repatriation Commission, finding that Stadoliukas was not entitled to the special rate. The court's decision was based on the lack of compelling evidence that the appellant's condition met the criteria set out in the relevant legislation.

The final order of the court was to affirm the decision under review. The appellant's claim for the special rate was dismissed, and the Repatriation Commission's decision was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION		)
Re		ANTANAS JANIS STADOLIUKAS

Exhibit	Description	Date
A1	Report by Dr M Burns, Occupational Physician	25 March 2002
A2	Statement by Mr Antanas Stadoliukas Letter to Ms Stadoliukas from Mr Antanas Stadoliukas	15 March 2001 Undated
A3	Letter to Ms Stadoliukas from Mrs Sonja Stadoliukas	Undated
A4	Statutory Declaration from Mr Antanas Stadoliukas	Undated
A5	Statutory Declaration from Mr Barry McKay	Undated
A6	Letter to Mr Stadoliukas from the Vietnam Veterans’ Counselling Service and attachment	7 June 2000
A7	Letter to Mr Stadoliukas from Dr RE Rae	16 May 2000
A8	Letter from Auto Group Commercial NSW	3 May 2000
A9	Summary of programs attended by Mr Stadoliukas	Undated
A10	Two Certificates of attendance from Vietnam Veterans’ Counselling Service for Mr Antanas and Mrs Sonja Stadoliukas	7-11 December 1998
A11	Report from Lyonswood Investigation Service	28 September 2001
A12	Document entitled "Unfair dismissal – Summary of Outcome"	Undated
A13	Copy of wage records for Mr Stadoliukas and letter	13 September 2000
A14	Minute from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and Attachment	18 April 2002
A15	Documents from Raine &…