Special rate of pension – over 65 – incapacitated from war caused disease alone of undertaking remunerative work for periods aggregating more than 8 hours per week; and – prevented from continuing to undertake the remunerative work (last paid work) that the veteran was last undertaking - because the veteran is so prevented from undertaking his or her last paid work, the veteran is suffering a loss of salary or wages
Whether Tribunal erred in finding material did not raise reasonable hypothesis by weighing evidence
Whether Tribunal erred in finding material did not raise reasonable hypothesis.
Veteran suffering from PTSD – whether veteran’s Vietnam service resulted in war-caused PTSD or its worsening – whether Tribunal had erred in law in application of standard of proof and applicable Statements of Principles
Claim for PTSD, generalised anxiety disorder and alcohol abuse – where parties agreed Tribunal had erred and the Tribunal’s decision should be set aside – where the Tribunal had also found it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s claims under s70 of the VEA on the basis the VRB had not dealt with this claim – whether the Tribunal had erred in its determination – whether the scope of remittal to the Tribunal should be confined.
Application for disability pension – whether the Tribunal failed to consider the hypothesis the applicant advanced and/or which was pointed to or raised by the evidence – whether the Tribunal failed to have regard to the whole of the material before it or engaged in impermissible fact finding.
Application for intermediate rate of pension – where the applicant had been working as a full-time partner of a law firm – where, because of his war-caused incapacity, he subsequently worked as a part-time consultant solicitor – where he was engaged in that part-time work at the time of his application – whether his full-time work should be considered to be his “remunerative work (last paid work)” for the purpose of s 23(3A)(d) of the VEA.
Application for above general rate of pension – where Tribunal found applicant’s “last paid work” comprised two remunerative activities for the purposes of ss 24(2A)(d) and (g) – whether only one remunerative activity can comprise “last paid work” for the purposes of s 24(2A)(d) – whether applicant undertaking “remunerative activity” when gap in paid work – whether breach of procedural fairness – whether sufficient for one of two remunerative activities comprising last paid work to satisfy 24(2A)(g).