Thompson v Repatriation Commision [1999] FCA 1485

Thompson v Repatriation Commision [1999] FCA 1485

The Tribunal did not err in its construction or application of s 24(2A)(g)(ii). Although continuous work does not require work every day, the applicant's significant periods without work, including only about 180 days worked in an 18 month period containing about 390 weekdays, made it open to the Tribunal to find that he had not been working on his own account for a continuous period of at least 10 years up to July 1996.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Concerning Entitlement to Special Rate Pension Under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (cth) / Federal Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.
Legal Topics
['special Rate Pension' 'veteran Over 65' 'continuous Period of Work' 'self Employment in Profession' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal']
["veterans' Entitlements" 'administrative Law'] ['special Rate Pension' 'veteran Over 65' 'continuous Period of Work' 'self Employment in Profession' 'appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal']

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 From Administrative Appeals Tribunal Concerning Entitlement to Special Rate Pension Under the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (cth) / Federal Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant, a medical practitioner who had turned 65, had been working on his own account in the profession of medical practitioner for a continuous period of at least 10 years that began before he turned 65, as required by s 24(2A)(g)(ii) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth)." 'Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal misconstrued s 24(2A)(g)(ii) by requiring continuous working throughout the relevant period.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in its construction or application of s 24(2A)(g)(ii). Although continuous work does not require work every day, the applicant's significant periods without work, including only about 180 days worked in an 18 month period containing about 390 weekdays, made it open to the Tribunal to find that he had not been working on his own account for a continuous period of at least 10 years up to July 1996.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including reserved costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs, including reserved costs."]