Repatriation Commission v Hill [2005] FCAFC 7

Repatriation Commission v Hill [2005] FCAFC 7

The correct legal test is whether, by reason of the impairment, the applicant is permanently unable to do remunerative work of the type that he or she would otherwise be fitted to undertake, for periods adding up to more than eight hours per week. The focus is on the individual's capacity to carry out such work, not on employability or capacity to find employment. The previous reasoning of the AAT and the primary judge were in error for importing principles from workers' compensation and not sufficiently applying the statutory language in context.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Federal Court Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge to Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Matter remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the Full Court's reasons. Appellant to pay respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['invalidity Service Pension' "interpretation of 'permanently Incapacitated for Work'" "scope of 'do Work' Under Veterans Legislation" 'social Security and Compensation Distinction']
["veterans' Affairs" 'administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['invalidity Service Pension' "interpretation of 'permanently Incapacitated for Work'" "scope of 'do Work' Under Veterans Legislation" 'social Security and Compensation Distinction']

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

Federal Court Appeal / Appeal From Single Judge to Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the term 'permanently incapacitated for work' and 'permanently unable to do work' under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) and supporting determination should be interpreted in line with workers' compensation law or according to the ordinary meaning in the veteran's pension context" 'Whether the AAT and primary judge applied the correct test for incapacity to do work' 'Whether capacity to perform remunerative work as opposed to capacity to find employment is the applicable test']

Ratio Decidendi

The correct legal test is whether, by reason of the impairment, the applicant is permanently unable to do remunerative work of the type that he or she would otherwise be fitted to undertake, for periods adding up to more than eight hours per week. The focus is on the individual's capacity to carry out such work, not on employability or capacity to find employment. The previous reasoning of the AAT and the primary judge were in error for importing principles from workers' compensation and not sufficiently applying the statutory language in context.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Matter remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the Full Court's reasons. Appellant to pay respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'Order 2 of the orders made on 1 July 2004 be affirmed.' 'Order 3 of the orders made on 1 July 2004 be set aside.' "In lieu thereof, an order that the application for review of the decision of the Repatriation Commission, rejecting the respondent's claim for an invalidity service pension...