Weeks and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Veterans' entitlements)

This matter concerned an application by Mr John Weeks for review of a decision by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission that denied liability to pay compensation. Mr Weeks initially wrote to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) on 25 May 2023 indicating his intention to withdraw his "Psychological claim". Subsequently, on 29 May 2023, he advised the Tribunal he no longer wished to withdraw his application, and on 30 May 2023, he sought further consideration of a claim concerning "Administrative incompetence". The AAT, represented by the Australian Government Solicitor, contended that Mr Weeks' application had been dismissed by operation of law on 25 May 2023, pursuant to subsection 42A(1B) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Weeks' correspondence of 25 May 2023 constituted a valid withdrawal of his application for review, thereby divesting the Tribunal of jurisdiction. A secondary issue was whether the "administrative incompetence" claim was within the scope of the reviewable decision. The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Weeks' subsequent attempts to retract his withdrawal or introduce a new claim could override the operation of section 42A(1B) of the AAT Act.

The Tribunal found that Mr Weeks' correspondence on 25 May 2023 was a notification of withdrawal for the purposes of subsection 42A(1A) of the AAT Act. Applying subsection 42A(1B), the Tribunal held that it ceased to have jurisdiction over Mr Weeks' application on that date, as the application is taken to have been dismissed upon lodgement of the withdrawal notification. The Tribunal relied on the principle established in *Kalafatis and Commissioner of Taxation* [2012] AATA 150, which states that once a withdrawal notification is lodged, the applicant cannot subsequently withdraw that notification, and the dismissal takes effect immediately. The Tribunal also noted that the "administrative claim" was outside the scope of the reviewable decision as it did not relate to an alleged injury.