Walker and Repatriation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

The matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerned an application by Mr. Walker for review of a decision made by the Veterans Review Board (VRB). The dispute centred on whether the AAT had jurisdiction to review certain communications from the VRB, which Mr. Walker contended were reviewable decisions, or whether these communications were merely correspondence and the only reviewable decision was an earlier VRB decision from 2014, an application to review which would be out of time. The Tribunal was presided over by W Frost M.

The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether it possessed jurisdiction to review the VRB's communications, specifically two emails sent in January 2022. Mr. Walker argued these emails constituted reviewable decisions, asserting they were not mere form correspondence and were made without due process. Conversely, the Repatriation Commission (the Respondent) contended that these emails were not decisions within the meaning of the *Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986* (VEA), and that the only reviewable decision was the VRB's decision of 27 August 2014. The Commission further argued that any application to review the 2014 decision was out of time, and no extension of time had been sought or could be granted, thus divesting the AAT of jurisdiction.

The Tribunal reasoned that the VRB's communications in January 2022 were not decisions reviewable by the AAT. It accepted the Commission's submission that these communications did not constitute a decision made under section 135 or section 175 of the VEA. The Tribunal noted that an application for review of the VRB's 2014 decision would be out of time, and no application for an extension of time had been made. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the matter.

Pursuant to subsection 42A(4) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975*, the Tribunal dismissed Mr. Walker's application without proceeding to a review of the decision, as it was satisfied that the decision was not reviewable by the Tribunal.