I have divided my Hypothetical into two parts(please note that they are not questions) First discusses

about the Facts and contours of Law where the Second Part is paving way for how to proceed ahead
as in how to meet ends of justice by appeal/review by interpreting precedents.

PART 1 of the Review

Issues at Hand

Eligibility to be adjudged under the Disability Pensions Act

Section 6F (Operational Service) : Seaman Harry Morant( HMAS Success{Early 1990’s to Mid 1992})
serving with the Royal Australian Navy on the United Nations Task Force to Iraq during Aftermath of
the First Gulf War. This elucidates upon the fact that my client was actually in service of the disputed
period which resulted in his suffering later in the years.

Section 9(War Caused Injuries) : The section states if the result is from an occurrence while Veteran
was rendering Operational Service ; The above fact mentioned is supported by Repatriation
Commission findings in 3.1 where he was serving around 30 nautical miles away from the Zone ,
whereas it is important to note that Contiguous Zone is at 24 Nautical Miles and it is actually close
enough to the affected zone in question enough for the Veterans to be subject to the Hot Zone, as
well as loading unloading contrabands and having boarding other ships show clearly that the veteran
was subjected to War Caused Injuries.

So answering the question, there is a legitimate scope to review the matter as the merits are
indicating the presence of Harry as an active veteran In service in the disputed time as well as zone.
Adding to this, another issue is of determining the disease,

Widening the Definition of Disease

Understanding Section 5D (a)(b) where it is important to note that it covers any ailment, disorder,
morbidities and it’s recurrence even a sudden onset or a gradual development. The facts of the issue
prima facie show implications of serving in Gulf as he was subjected to Migraines, Dizziness and
Fatigue just after returning back to base which compelled him to leave active service and joined an
easier task of a Deckhand on Fishing Boats. Post 2005 he faced severe joint pains and digestive
problems which are a gradual development under Section 5D, All these diseases and injuries hint
towards fulfilment of the words sudden onset and gradual development and would constitute a
Disease.

PART 2 of the Review

Considering the Claim of Pension filed under Section 14(2) in 2014 and the rejection then and again
in 2019 by the board under Section 139, Mr Harry is to be advised to approach the Administrative
Appellate Tribunal under Section 175(b)(ii) for Review of the order on Merit as there is both
Question of Law and Question of Fact involved for reviewing the matter on merit.
There would be no adducing of evidence as it would make the claim null as held in Waterford vs
Commonwealth 1986 but as held in Shi v MARA,2008 there cannot be a complete disregard to the
new and fresh evidence in order to achieve the purposes of the Administrative Appellate Tribunal,
regarding Question of Law it is to be noted that there would be a statutory interpretation of the
Veteran Entitlements Act and may also interpret ground for review as held in the case of Hope vs
Bathurst City Council,1980. Mr Harry will have to approach the AAT under Section 43(1) to review
the case on merit.

There can be further appeals to the AAT under the Second Review provided under Section 3 of the
Primary act and if exhausted this then to the Federal Court under Section 44; The QCAT has also
jurisdiction over Human Right issues as well as Administrative and Disciplinary matters.

There has to be a challenge made to the Authorities stating that Gulf War Syndrome is not to be
subjected to Section 5D as per the 2003 decision of the Authority as it is well known for a fact as to
what are the implications of being in active service of a combat zone, it causes a tremendous stress
and suffering which results into morbidities and ailments later in the life and there should be
inclusion of the Veterans who have served during Gulf War in the Disability Pensions Clause.

The arguments made by the Doctors regarding my client’s usage of Amphetamine has to be
challenged too as my Client has stated clearly that he stopped the usage of such substances Post
2005 and after it the major challenge of severities and complications arose with my client’s health.
Usage of Marijuana is under the prescription as he is facing Joint Pains so these substances have not
contributed to my Client’s bad health, rather it is the stress and harassment by the authorities and
the board which has led to him being on a downfall as his expectations were thrashed after giving his
sweat and blood for the country.

My prayer is to the AAT that please respect the veteran giving his major life for just fighting with the
navy and then with their own system at what cost! I will be highly obliged if he is being granted relief
under the Entitlements Act and declaring him legitimate under the Disability Pensions Clause.