Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1032

Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2001] FCA 1032

The applicant did not satisfy the requirement of s 24(2A)(e) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 because, based on the available material, he had never derived net earnings from his farming business except in one year, and there was no contention or evidence that the business would have been profitable but for his war-caused incapacity. The Tribunal's flexible approach to assessing loss of earnings was permissible and did not reveal legal error.

Parties
Applicant: Laurence Counsel; Respondent: Repatriation Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Special Rate Pension Eligibility, Loss of Earnings, Remunerative Work
Administrative Law Veterans' Entitlements Special Rate Pension Eligibility Loss of Earnings Remunerative Work

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Laurence Counsel

Applicant

Repatriation Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant suffered a 'loss of earnings on his own account' under s 24(2A)(e) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal erred in its construction of 'earnings' and failure to consider hypothetical earnings

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not satisfy the requirement of s 24(2A)(e) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 because, based on the available material, he had never derived net earnings from his farming business except in one year, and there was no contention or evidence that the business would have been profitable but for his war-caused incapacity. The Tribunal's flexible approach to assessing loss of earnings was permissible and did not reveal legal error.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

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