Counsel v Repatriation Commission [2002] FCAFC 201
The Full Court held that, for special rate pension eligibility, a veteran’s “earnings on his or her own account” can mean gross partnership receipts, not only net profit after expenses.
The claim for lumbar spondylosis was lodged on 29 May 1995, after the 1 June 1994 amendments to the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth), so the amended s 24 applied. The applicant ceased work at age 60, so failed to satisfy the cumulative requirements of s 24(2A), in particular s 24(2A)(f), and was thus ineligible for the special rate of pension. The AAT did not err in law nor fail to give adequate reasons.
Repatriation Commission v Flentjar, John Joseph [1997] FCA 371
The Federal Court allowed an appeal from the AAT, holding it had wrongly assessed special rate pension eligibility under s 24(1)(c) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act.
Repatriation Commission v Smith, M.J. [1987] FCA 432
The Tribunal applied an incorrect standard of proof by relying on 'real possibilities' rather than the civil standard of reasonable satisfaction required by s.120(4) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986. Further, eligibility for a special rate pension under s.24(1)(c) is to be determined as at three months prior to the application (per s.20(1)), not as at retirement, and ongoing entitlement requires proof of continuing economic loss. The Tribunal's reliance on general 'notorious' facts about the trade, without proper application of the correct standard to the evidence regarding this specifi…
McGuire, W.G. v. Repatriation Commission [1987] FCA 431
Federal Court appeal about veterans’ special rate pension eligibility under s 24 of the Veterans’ Entitlements Act, including the effect of retirement age and continued employment.
Lucas, L.R. v The Repatriation Commission [1986] FCA 518
The Federal Court dismissed Lloyd Rhys Lucas’s appeal seeking special or intermediate rate repatriation pension. The court held his war-related incapacity alone did not establish the required economic loss.