The Executor of the Estate of the Late DMLC and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

The Executor of the Estate of the Late DMLC and the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation) were the parties before Deputy J W Constance P. The dispute concerned whether Ms A, the daughter of the deceased, qualified as a "prescribed child" for the purposes of receiving weekly compensation following her father's death. This qualification hinged on whether Ms A was "receiving full-time education" at the time of her father's death, despite having a medical condition that impacted her ability to enrol in a full-time course load.

The court was required to determine the meaning of "receiving full-time education" within the context of the relevant legislation and departmental policy. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Ms A's enrolment in a single subject at university, coupled with her medical condition preventing a standard full-time course load, satisfied the definition of full-time education. The court also had to assess the significance of the university's formal classification of Ms A's enrolment status against the actual nature of her educational activities.

The court reasoned that the determination of whether a student is "receiving full-time education" should focus on the nature of the activity undertaken rather than solely on the formal enrolment status. While formal recognition by an educational institution as a full-time student is usually conclusive, the court noted that where enrolment is part-time, inquiries into the actual workload are necessary. The court found guidance in previous Federal Court decisions which indicated that the classification by an institution is only one factor to consider, and the ultimate question is one of fact to be determined on the evidence. Despite Ms A not being formally classified as a full-time student by the university, the court considered the evidence of her engagement in education within the limitations of her medical condition.

The reviewable decision of the respondent, which affirmed the rejection of Ms A's claim for weekly compensation, was set aside. The matter was remitted to the respondent to determine the compensation payable in accordance with section 17 of the Act, with the agreed period for eligibility being 20 April 2016 to 3 November 2016 inclusive.