Vahdat and Repatriation Commission - [2005] AATA 1047

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 1047
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2004/978

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION
)

Re BIZHAN VAHDAT

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal Senior Member P McDermott
Dr GJ Maynard, Member

Date21 October 2005
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
We set aside the decision of the Veteran’s Review Board and substitute a decision that Mr Vahdat is entitled to receive a pension at the special rate with effect from 16 February 2002.

…........[Sgd]................
P McDermott
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS
VETERANS' AFFAIRS - disability pension - whether entitled to special rate - Veterans' Entitlements Act s 24 - whether war-caused diseases prevented veteran from continuing remunerative work s 24(c)-alone test.
Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 24, Part 2
Repatriation Commission v Braud (1991) 23 ALD 591
Flentjar v Repatriation Commission 1997 48 ALD 1
Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424
Cavell v Repatriation Commission (1988) 9 AAR 534
Repatriation Commission v Alexander (2003) 75 ALD 329
Giesen v Repatriation Commission [2005] FCA 846
Forbes v Repatriation Commission (2000) 31 AAR 381
Peacock v Repatriation Commission [2004] FCA 1449
Pollivette Ltd v Commercial Union Assurance Co Pty Ltd [1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 379
Hornery and Repatriation Commission (1998) 52 ALD 317
Leane v Repatriation Commission [2003] FCA 889.
Fox v Repatriation Commission (1997) 45 ALD 317
REASONS FOR DECISION

21 October 2005 Senior Member P McDermott

         Dr GJ Maynard, Member
Introduction
1.      We have to decide whether Mr Bizhan Vahdat should receive a pension at the special rate pursuant to the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) (“the Act”). Mr Vahdat is a veteran who is already receiving a pension for war-caused injuries and war-caused diseases under Part 2 of the Act. A delegate of the Repatriation Commission (“Commission”) has determined that Mr Vahdat is entitled to be paid pension at 100% of the general rate under the Act. Mr Vahdat contends that the Commission erred in determining the rate of pension payable to him and that he should receive a pension at the special rate.
Legislative Framework
2.      A veteran such as Mr Vahdat who is in receipt of a pension may make an application for an increase in the rate of pension: see s 15.
3.      The Commission is required to consider and determine the claim or application of a veteran: see s 18.
4.      The Commission is required to consider the rate or rates at which a pension would have been payable during the assessment period, and also the rate at which the pension is payable: s 19(5C). The assessment period commences on the day on which a claim or application is received, and ends on the day when the claim or application is determined: s 19(9).
5. A pension under the Act may be paid at the general rate (s 22), the intermediate rate (s 23), or the special rate (s 24).
History of the Matter
6.      Mr Vahdat had operational service with the Australian Army in Vietnam from…

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 Vahdat and Repatriation Commission

Details

AGLC: Vahdat and Repatriation Commission [2005] AATA 1047
Case: [2005] AATA 1047
Decision Date: 21 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Vahdat and Repatriation Commission, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether Mr Vahdat, a veteran, was entitled to a special rate of disability pension under the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. The Repatriation Commission had denied his application for the special rate pension, asserting that his war-related conditions did not meet the statutory criteria for preventing him from continuing remunerative work. The case hinged on the interpretation and application of section 24 of the Act, particularly in light of relevant case law and legislative history.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr Vahdat's war-caused diseases and disabilities prevented him from engaging in remunerative work. The court had to consider whether his conditions met the "alone test" under section 24(c) of the Act, which stipulates that a veteran must be unable to engage in any gainful occupation due to their war-related incapacities. The court also examined the legislative intent behind the special rate pension provisions and how they applied to Mr Vahdat's unique circumstances.

The court found that Mr Vahdat's war-caused diseases and disabilities indeed prevented him from continuing remunerative work, aligning with the statutory criteria and precedent set by cases such as Repatriation Commission v Braud and Flentjar v Repatriation Commission. The court emphasised the importance of the "alone test" and noted that Mr Vahdat's conditions met this threshold, as they significantly impaired his ability to work. The court concluded that the Repatriation Commission's decision to deny the special rate pension was incorrect and set aside the Veteran’s Review Board's decision.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the decision of the Veteran’s Review Board and substitute a decision that Mr Vahdat is entitled to receive a pension at the special rate with effect from 16 February 2002. This ruling ensures that Mr Vahdat receives the pension benefits to which he is legally entitled, reflecting the court's detailed analysis of the statutory provisions and relevant case law.

Orders

Orders of the court

We set aside the decision of the Veteran’s Review Board and substitute a decision that Mr Vahdat is entitled to receive a pension at the special rate with effect from 16 February 2002.

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.

21 October 2005	Senior Member P McDermott
Dr GJ Maynard, Member