VERNON WILSON and REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2009] AATA 955

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2007/0900

VETERANS' APPEALS DIVISION )
Re VERNON WILSON

Applicant

And

REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis  

Date15 December 2009

PlaceAdelaide  

Decision

The tribunal affirms the decision under review.

D G Jarvis

(Signed)
  (Deputy President)  

6.      I have reached the conclusion, for the reasons set out below, that Mr Wilson has not satisfied the requirements of s 24(1)(c) of the VE Act, and so is not entitled to a pension at the special rate.

Background

7.      The following background facts are based upon Mr Wilson’s evidence, and were not in dispute.

8.      Mr Wilson is now aged 59.  He left school when he was aged 15 and joined the Navy.  He trained as a mechanical engineer in the engine room and boiler room departments.  He became qualified as a fitter machinist, a recognised trade.  He also qualified to operate certain machinery and engines, and attained the rank of Petty Officer.

9.      During his time in the Navy he served on a number of ships.  A large portion of his time was spent at sea.  His area of work was the engine room and boiler room.  At times the conditions in the boiler room were extraordinarily oppressive and extremely difficult to cope with.

10.     After 20 years’ service he left the Navy and undertook a three-month course in driving heavy equipment such as bulldozers and earthmoving equipment.  He attained licences to do this, but did not in fact undertake that sort of work.

11.     After he left the Navy he worked with the Tweed Shire Council as a fitter/machinist for 11 months.  He then returned to sea in the Merchant Navy as a greaser.  He enjoyed that employment, and continued it for about five years.  He had begun to drink heavily during his Naval service, and continued to drink heavily in his subsequent employment.  He had unrestricted access to alcohol during his time with the Merchant Navy, because he was the bar manager on board a ship.  His first marriage broke up because he was spending too much time at sea, and because of his drinking problems.

12.     He left the Merchant Navy in 1993 because he was not prepared to become a member of the union, and so was unable to go to sea.  He had remarried, and then became a house husband, assisting with household tasks and with bringing up his children, so as to enable his wife to work.  He once tried to work as a cleaner, but gave this up after only one night.

13.     Mr Wilson’s drinking problem has been in remission since February 2003.  He and his wife have lived in South Australia since returning there in 2003.

14.     Just before he returned to South Australia, Mr Wilson became aware of pain in his feet.  This gradually got worse, and he was eventually diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy at the Repatriation General Hospital.  He…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read VERNON WILSON and REPATRIATION COMMISSION and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2009] AATA 955
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vernon Wilson and the Repatriation Commission came before the court in a matter concerning the eligibility of Mr Wilson for a disability pension under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Mr Wilson argued that he was entitled to a special rate of pension due to his incapacity, which stemmed from war-related conditions, preventing him from engaging in remunerative work. The tribunal had previously determined that Mr Wilson did not meet the criteria for the special rate of pension, and this decision was the subject of appeal.

The court was tasked with determining whether Mr Wilson's incapacity genuinely prevented him from engaging in remunerative work, thus qualifying him for the special rate of pension. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Mr Wilson genuinely sought to establish a business of growing and selling flowers and whether his war-caused conditions were a substantial cause of his inability to do so. The court's interpretation of these issues hinged on the legislative provisions and relevant case law.

The court, in affirming the tribunal’s decision, held that Mr Wilson’s proposed business activities would not constitute remunerative work. Furthermore, the court found that Mr Wilson ceased employment for reasons other than his war-caused incapacity, which meant the loss test was not met. The court relied on precedents such as Forbes v Repatriation Commission, Jackman v Repatriation Commission, Magill v Repatriation Commission, Repatriation Commission v Braund, and Repatriation Commission v Smith to support its reasoning. The court concluded that Mr Wilson's incapacity did not prevent him from engaging in remunerative work, and thus, the special rate of pension was not warranted.

The tribunal's decision was affirmed, and Mr Wilson’s appeal was dismissed. The court held that the tribunal had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and case law in determining that Mr Wilson did not qualify for the special rate of pension.

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.