Rendell v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1881

Rendell v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1881

The appeal failed because the Tribunal made findings open on the evidence that alcohol abuse and other non-war-caused factors, including inadequate managerial experience or skill and dissatisfaction with the work, were significant factors in the applicant's employability and ability to work. Those findings meant that the applicant had not shown that accepted war-caused disabilities alone prevented him from continuing or resuming remunerative work, or that PTSD was the substantial cause of any inability to obtain work under s 24(2)(b). The Tribunal's reasons adequately disclosed its reasoning and it had not confined its consideration of remunerative work to the soft drink franchise.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Appeal on Questions of Law
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['special Rate Pension' 'totally and Permanently Incapacitated Pension' 'war Caused Injury or Disease' 'reasons of Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'appeal on Questions of Law']
["veterans' Affairs" 'administrative Law'] ['special Rate Pension' 'totally and Permanently Incapacitated Pension' 'war Caused Injury or Disease' 'reasons of Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'appeal on Questions of Law']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Appeal on Questions of Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding that alcohol abuse contributed to the applicant's incapacity to engage in remunerative work." "Whether the Tribunal failed to apply s 24(2)(b) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) when applying s 24(1)(c)." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to consider whether, but for PTSD, the applicant would be continuing to seek remunerative work and whether PTSD was the substantial cause of his inability to obtain work.' "Whether the Tribunal misconstrued 'remunerative work' in s 24(1)(c) by focusing on the applicant's soft drink franchise and failing to consider other work, including paving work."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the Tribunal made findings open on the evidence that alcohol abuse and other non-war-caused factors, including inadequate managerial experience or skill and dissatisfaction with the work, were significant factors in the applicant's employability and ability to work. Those findings meant that the applicant had not shown that accepted war-caused disabilities alone prevented him from continuing or resuming remunerative work, or that PTSD was the substantial cause of any inability to obtain work under s 24(2)(b). The Tribunal's reasons adequately disclosed its reasoning and it had not confined its consideration of remunerative work to the soft drink franchise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal."]