Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 201

Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 201

The term 'earnings' in s 24(2A)(e) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), when applied to a partner in a business, refers to the gross income or revenue stream arising from personal exertion, not limited to net profit after expenses; the Tribunal erred in law by construing 'earnings' narrowly as only net profit, thereby wrongly concluding that the veteran had not suffered a loss of earnings.

Parties
Appellant: Laurence Counsel; Respondent: Repatriation Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Loss of Earnings, Special Rate Pension, Interpretation of 'earnings', Partnership Income
Veterans' Entitlements Administrative Law Loss of Earnings Special Rate Pension Interpretation of 'earnings' Partnership Income

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laurence Counsel

Appellant

Repatriation Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Court Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the veteran suffered a 'loss of earnings on his or her own account' within the meaning of s 24(2A)(e) Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in law by construing 'earnings' as net profit instead of gross income
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal was required to consider the hypothetical position if the applicant had not been incapacitated

Ratio Decidendi

The term 'earnings' in s 24(2A)(e) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), when applied to a partner in a business, refers to the gross income or revenue stream arising from personal exertion, not limited to net profit after expenses; the Tribunal erred in law by construing 'earnings' narrowly as only net profit, thereby wrongly concluding that the veteran had not suffered a loss of earnings.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • The orders of the Court given on 1 August 2001 be set aside.