Repatriation Commission v Buckingham, Alan George [1996] FCA 37

Repatriation Commission v Buckingham, Alan George [1996] FCA 37

The Tribunal did not err in law in finding that Mr Buckingham was entitled to the intermediate rate pension. Its reasons, read as a whole, showed that it considered the matters required by s.28 and no impermissible matters; its references to the open market concerned the reasonable availability of remunerative work for a person with Mr Buckingham's skills and experience, not transient labour market conditions. There was evidence supporting the findings that his war-caused injuries rendered him incapable of working 20 hours or more per week and that his cessation of remunerative work was due to those injuries alone rather than religious commitment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 From a Decision of the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Judgment Dismissing the Application
Outcome
The application was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['disability Pension at Intermediate Rate' 'remunerative Work' 'war Caused Incapacity' 'no Evidence Ground on Appeal' "veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 Ss 23 and 28"]
['administrative Law' "veterans' Entitlements"] ['disability Pension at Intermediate Rate' 'remunerative Work' 'war Caused Incapacity' 'no Evidence Ground on Appeal' "veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 Ss 23 and 28"]

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 Under S.44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 From a Decision of the Veterans' Appeals Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Federal Court Judgment Dismissing the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal misconstrued the term "remunerative work" in s.23 of the Veterans\' Entitlements Act 1986.' "Whether the Tribunal had regard to the matters specified in s.28 of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 and to those matters only." 'Whether the Tribunal impermissibly considered the state of the labour market by referring to the "open market".' "Whether there was evidence to support the Tribunal's finding that Mr Buckingham was incapable of working 20 hours or more per week." 'Whether there was evidence to support the finding that Mr Buckingham was prevented from continuing remunerative work by war-caused incapacity alone rather than by religious commitment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law in finding that Mr Buckingham was entitled to the intermediate rate pension. Its reasons, read as a whole, showed that it considered the matters required by s.28 and no impermissible matters; its references to the open market concerned the reasonable availability of remunerative work for a person with Mr Buckingham's skills and experience, not transient labour market conditions. There was evidence supporting the findings that his war-caused injuries rendered him incapable of working 20 hours or more per week and that his cessation of remunerative work was due to those injuries alone rather than religious commitment.

Court Disposition

The application was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['That the application be dismissed.' "That the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application, such costs to be taxed."]