Grant v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 1047

Grant v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 1047

The applicant's war-caused disabilities were not the sole cause of his cessation of remunerative work; economic factors including the slump in the wool industry also contributed, and thus the 'alone test' under s 24(2A)(d) was not satisfied. The Tribunal did not misapply the law, impose an onus, or fail to give adequate reasons.

Parties
Applicant: Brian Grant; Respondent: Repatriation Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment at Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Rate of Pension, War Caused Disability, Application of S 24 Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986, Standard of Proof, Onus of Proof, Adequacy of Tribunal Reasons
Veterans' Affairs Administrative Law Special Rate of Pension War Caused Disability Application of S 24 Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 Standard of Proof Onus of Proof Adequacy of Tribunal Reasons

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Grant

Applicant

Repatriation Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment at Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a Special Rate of pension under s 24 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was prevented from continuing remunerative work because of war-caused disability 'alone'
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal erred in its interpretation of the 'alone test' under s 24(2A)(d)

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's war-caused disabilities were not the sole cause of his cessation of remunerative work; economic factors including the slump in the wool industry also contributed, and thus the 'alone test' under s 24(2A)(d) was not satisfied. The Tribunal did not misapply the law, impose an onus, or fail to give adequate reasons.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the application.