.........................[SGD]...............................................

VETERANS - application for reinstatement of application for review of decision refusing claim for incapacity payments - application for review previously heard on the merits and dismissed with accompanying reasons for decision - Tribunal power to reinstate not available in such circumstances - application for reinstatement dismissed

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 s 102

Boots and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2017] AATA 177

Boots and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2025] ARTA 1089

Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 367

JTBJ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social Security) [2025] ARTA 464

Peter Boots and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission per SM George, 23 December 2025, (unreported)

1. By application dated 27 May 2025, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the respondent's decision made on 27 May 2025, affirming its initial decision made on 11 September 2023, to refuse his claim for incapacity payments for an adjustment disorder with elements of post-traumatic stress disorder under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation (Defence-related Claims) Act 1988.
2. The Tribunal heard the applicant's application on 19 December 2025. On 23 December 2025, the Tribunal dismissed the application and provided the parties with written reasons for its decision.[1]
3. On 5 January 2026, the applicant filed a handwritten document entitled "2025/4075 Reinstatement Application" in which he stated:

I would like the decision[2] to be reinstated because there wasn't any evidence accepted from my treating psychiatrist or doctor of over 20 years that I still suffer from a 20% WPI and suffer adjustment disorder with elements of PTSD. I find this quite insulting and think this process has been wrong hence the reason I'm seeking reinstatement of the decision. Thank you for your reconsideration.

1. The Tribunal's power on application to reinstate an application that has been dismissed is found in s 102(5) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, which provides:

A party to the proceeding in relation to the application[3] may apply to the Tribunal for reinstatement of the application on the grounds of error within 28 days after the party receives notice that the application is dismissed (or such longer period as the Tribunal, in special circumstances, allows).

1. With reliance on the Tribunal's decision in JTBJ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social Security) [2025] ARTA 464 (JTBJ) and a decision of a Full Court of the Federal Court in Goldie v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 367, the respondent submitted that the power to reinstate under s 102(5) is exercisable only where the decision to dismiss the application for review has been made without the Tribunal having reviewed the merits of the decision under review. I agree.
2. Put another way, drawing on JTBJ, the respondent submitted the Tribunal's discretion to reinstate under s 102(5) does not involve "some sort of appeal procedure". Rather, it is a means of providing "a relatively informal method of bringing a matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration with a view to it being considered on the merits".[4] I agree.
3. Turning then to this case, the respondent submitted the applicant's application for review has been considered on the merits. With reference to the Tribunal's reasons for decision provided on 23 December 2025, the respondent noted the Tribunal dismissed the application as lacking in substance and an abuse of process because the applicant's claims for compensation had already been heard and decided on the merits in earlier decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given in 2017[5] (the 2017 decision) and then this Tribunal earlier in 2025 (the 2025 decision).[6] The applicant did not submit anything to the contrary. I accept the respondent's submission, which is borne out by the Tribunal's reasons. As the Tribunal in this proceeding pointed out in its reasons, the applicant was seeking to relitigate his claims for incapacity payments which had already been "squarely decided"[7] in the earlier proceedings.
4. I appreciate the applicant wanted his application for review reinstated because the Tribunals in their 2017 and 2025 decisions did not accept the evidence of his treating practitioners that he still suffers from a workplace injury. I am sorry the applicant finds their non-acceptance of that evidence to be "quite insulting", but their non-acceptance does not mean the earlier Tribunals did not consider it: on the contrary, they did consider it but were not so persuaded.
5. The alleged error of the earlier Tribunals by not accepting that evidence is not an error in this proceeding. Nor is it an error of a kind contemplated in s 102(5) that would enliven the discretionary power to reinstate the applicant's application in this proceeding. Rather, it is an alleged error that could have been considered on appeal from the 2017 decision or the 2025 decision. The applicant did not appeal from either decision.
6. The applicant's application for review in this proceeding has been determined on the merits. It followed that the power to reinstate under s 102(5) was not available with the result that the application for reinstatement was dismissed.

[1] Peter Boots and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission per SM George, 23 December 2025, (unreported)

[2] As I understood it, the applicant's wish for 'the decision' to be reinstated was intended to mean reinstatement of his application for review

[4] JTBJ and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social Security) [2025] ARTA 464 at [33]

[5] Boots and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2017] AATA 177

[6] Boots and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2025] ARTA 1089

[7] Peter Boots and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission per SM George, 23 December 2025, (unreported) at [10]