Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424

Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424

The Tribunal did not commit an error of law. It correctly addressed s 24(1)(b) and s 24(1)(c), was not bound to confine the s 24(1)(c) inquiry to the Veteran's last job with Materials in the Raw, and was entitled to consider non-war-caused knee arthritis and labour market factors when deciding whether war-caused disabilities alone prevented continued remunerative work during the assessment period. Its findings were findings of fact open on the evidence, and its reasons satisfied s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Veterans' Entitlements and Entitlement to a Special Rate Pension / Full Court Appeal From Orders of a Single Judge Made on an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal upheld; orders of the primary judge set aside; appeal from the Tribunal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['special Rate Pension' 'war Caused Injury or Disease' 'total and Permanent Incapacity' 'remunerative Work' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Reasons' 'error of Law']
['administrative Law' "veterans' Entitlements"] ['special Rate Pension' 'war Caused Injury or Disease' 'total and Permanent Incapacity' 'remunerative Work' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Reasons' 'error 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 Concerning Veterans' Entitlements and Entitlement to a Special Rate Pension / Full Court Appeal From Orders of a Single Judge Made on an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal erred in law in applying s 24(1)(c) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)." "Whether the Tribunal was required to assess only the respondent's last employment with Materials in the Raw or could consider the substantive remunerative work previously undertaken." 'Whether non-war-caused knee arthritis, labour market factors, absence from the workforce and age could be considered in deciding whether war-caused incapacity alone prevented continued remunerative work.' 'Whether the Tribunal failed to give proper, genuine and realistic consideration to the evidence or failed to give adequate reasons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not commit an error of law. It correctly addressed s 24(1)(b) and s 24(1)(c), was not bound to confine the s 24(1)(c) inquiry to the Veteran's last job with Materials in the Raw, and was entitled to consider non-war-caused knee arthritis and labour market factors when deciding whether war-caused disabilities alone prevented continued remunerative work during the assessment period. Its findings were findings of fact open on the evidence, and its reasons satisfied s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; orders of the primary judge set aside; appeal from the Tribunal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be upheld.' "The orders of Madgwick J made on 10 May 2002 be set aside and, in lieu thereof, orders be substituted that the appeal be dismissed and the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application." "The respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal."]