In
Jackman v. Repatriation Commission, the Federal Court held that there is no presumption that the reason for ceasing work will continue to apply such that it must be said that if the veteran ceased work for war-caused reasons alone then the veteran must be taken at the application day to be prevented from continuing to undertake the remunerative work that the veteran was undertaking by reason of war-caused disabilities alone. The Court said:"A presumption of continuance is not appropriate to the determination the AAT has to make under s.24(1)(c). It is well accepted that the relevant date of assessment is the date of application, not retirement: Banovich v. Repatriation Commission (1986) 69 ALR 395. The AAT must make its determination as at the time of application, taking into account all considerations relevant to the specific case in question. Where the application date is close to the retirement date the weight to be given to the applicant's circumstances at the time of retirement will be greater than in cases, such as the present, where there is a lengthy period of time between the dates. In such cases other significant factors such as age and time out of the work force can become important and relevant considerations: Repatriation Commission v. Wilson (1996) 43 ALD 777; Repatriation Commission v. Braund (1991) 23 ALD 591. It is not sufficient for the AAT to be satisfied that at the date of retirement the applicant satisfied s.24(1)(c): Braund at 595."