Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 819
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) N2003/121
VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION ) Re
William Thompson
Applicant
And
Repatriation Commission
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr RP Handley, Deputy President Date21 August 2003
PlaceSydney
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...............................................
RP Handley
Deputy President
CATCHWORDS
VETERANS ENTITLEMENTS – eligibility for Gold Card – whether Applicant qualifies for Gold Card – “qualifying service” – examination of Applicant’s service record – examination of Army war records for attack on Newcastle in June 1942 – held that the Applicant did not render “qualifying service” and is not eligible for a Gold Card – decision of the Respondent affirmed.
Veterans Entitlement Act 1962 ss 5B(I), 7A, 85(4A), 120(4)
Repatriation Commission v Mitchell [2002] FCA 1177
Repatriation Commission v Thompson (1988) ALR 352
Willcocks v Repatriation Commission (1962) 111 ALR 639
REASONS FOR DECISION
21 August 2003 Mr RP Handley, Deputy President
1. This is an application by William Thompson (“the Applicant”) for a review of a decision of a delegate of the Repatriation Commission (“the Respondent”) made on 20 September 2002 to refuse the grant of a Gold Card to the Applicant.
2. At the hearing, which was held at Wallsend near Newcastle, the Applicant was assisted by his son Peter Thompson and the Respondent was represented by Michael Ryan, Advocate, of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. The evidence before the Tribunal comprised the documents produced pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“the T Documents”) together with the documents tendered by the parties at the hearing. The Applicant gave evidence in person.
Background
3. The Applicant, William Thompson, was born in West Wallsend on 12 May 1912 and is aged 91. He is married to Thelma Catherine Thompson and has one son, Peter.
4. On 31 January 1942, Mr Thompson enlisted in the Australian Army (T p6) in which he served from 2 March 1942 until 27 January 1945 (T p23). During this period, Mr Thompson’s Army service was wholly within Australia (T p23). In June 1942, Mr Thompson was stationed at Speers Point, on Lake Macquarie, south of Newcastle, with the 20th Field Regiment as a dispatch rider.
5. During the early hours of the morning on 8 June 1942, a Japanese submarine attacked Newcastle, firing 34 shells into the port and city areas from a distance of approximately nine kilometres northeast of the city: eight of the shells were star shells for illumination; 26 were high explosive shells. In response, the coastal battery at Fort Scratchley fired four rounds in the direction from which the enemy shells were coming. It is estimated that the shelling lasted for approximately 21 minutes, with only superficial damage being sustained to the city environment (T p18). The location of where 19 of the shells landed is known. It is thought that the remainder probably landed short in the sea. Most of the shells that landed failed to explode.
Continue reading Thompson and Repatriation Commission
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Thompson and Repatriation Commission [2003] AATA 819
- Case
- [2003] AATA 819
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the interpretation of "qualifying service" and the examination of the Applicant's military service records, particularly in relation to their involvement in the attack on Newcastle in June 1942. The court needed to determine if the Applicant's service met the statutory criteria for a Gold Card. The court considered relevant case law and statutory provisions to evaluate the eligibility of the Applicant.
After examining the Applicant's service records and the relevant provisions of the Veterans Entitlements Act, the court found that the Applicant did not render "qualifying service" as defined by the Act. The court held that the Applicant's service did not meet the necessary criteria for eligibility for a Gold Card. The decision of the Repatriation Commission to decline the Applicant's claim was affirmed by the court.
The court's reasoning was grounded in a detailed analysis of the statutory text and relevant case law, which provided a clear framework for determining the Applicant's eligibility. The court concluded that the statutory criteria for "qualifying service" had not been met, leading to the affirmation of the Commission's decision. The final order of the court was to affirm the decision of the Repatriation Commission, denying the Applicant's claim for a Gold Card.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
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.