Abrahams v Telstra Corporation Ltd - [1995] FCA 717

CATCHWORDS

WORKER'S COMPENSATION - Commonwealth employees - effect of the transitional provisions of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 where liability to pay compensation arising under the former legislation is in issue - examination of Tribunal's reasons for decision - whether the Tribunal's use of the term "incapacity" in affirming the determination that the applicant's "injury" was not employment related led it into error - whether a former employee has a right to be assessed for capability to undertake a rehabilitation program.

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss36(1), 62, 124(1A), 127(2) and 132(2A)
Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1971

Brennan v Comcare (1994) 50 FLR 555
Telstra Corporation Limited v Warner (1994) 20 AAR 259
Politis v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 16 ALD 707

CORAL DOREEN ABRAHAMS v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
No VG 349 of 1993

FINN J
MELBOURNE
4 SEPTEMBER 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY       )    No. VG 349 of 1993
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN: CORAL DOREEN ABRAHAMS

Applicant

AND: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

COURT: FINN J

PLACE: MELBOURNE

DATE: 4 SEPTEMBER 1995

MINUTES OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The decision of the Tribunal be affirmed.

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

Note:Settlement and entry or orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY       )    No. VG 349 of 1993
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN: CORAL DOREEN ABRAHAMS

Applicant

AND: TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

COURT: FINN J

PLACE: MELBOURNE

DATE: 4 SEPTEMBER 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Amended Notice of Appeal in this matter would tend to suggest that the errors of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal") were many and varied. It lists 9 points of law and 13 grounds of appeal. Needless to say the appeal as argued in this Court betrayed a somewhat different appreciation of the Tribunal's decision. Only three matters were the subject of contention and each is of narrow compass.

The principal of these concerned the manner in which the transitional provisions (Part X) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the "1988 Act") affect the making of a determination that liability no longer exists to make
compensation payments to a person claiming to be a "former employee" within the terms of Part X, that liability having previously been accepted under the Compensation (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1971 (the "1971 Act").

The other two matters related first to the sufficiency in law of the findings made by the Tribunal in respect of one of the two applications made to it; and secondly to whether, under the 1988 Act, a former employee has a right to be assessed for capability to undertake a rehabilitation program under s36(1) of that Act.

Factual Background

In 1976 the applicant, who was in the employment of the then Postmaster General's Department, sustained an injury to her left knee in circumstances unrelated to her employment. The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Abrahams v Telstra Corporation Ltd

Details

AGLC: Abrahams v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1995] FCA 717
Case: [1995] FCA 717
Decision Date: 4 SEPTEMBER 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in this matter was brought by Coral Doreen Abrahams, the applicant, against Telstra Corporation Limited, the respondent, in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought to challenge the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the "Tribunal") to affirm two reviewable decisions made by the respondent. The first reviewable decision concerned the applicant's right to weekly compensation payments in respect of an injury to her right knee, while the second related to her entitlement to compensation for an injury to her left knee. The third issue on the appeal concerned the applicant's right to be assessed for a rehabilitation program. The primary issue before the court was whether the Tribunal erred in affirming the reviewable decisions and if it had failed to address the proper legal questions in doing so.

The court considered whether the Tribunal had correctly applied the transitional provisions of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the "1988 Act") in making its determinations. The court held that the Tribunal had not erred in its application of the transitional provisions, as the provisions did not apply to the question of the respondent's liability to pay compensation, which was the issue before the Tribunal. The court also found that the Tribunal's reasons for affirming the reviewable decisions were adequate, and the Tribunal had not failed to address the proper legal questions in doing so.

Lastly, the court found that the issue of the applicant's right to a rehabilitation assessment was not before the Tribunal, and it had not made any findings on the matter. The court held that it would be futile to remit the matter to the Tribunal for a decision on this issue, as an assessment had already been conducted. The court also noted that the applicant remained free to request a rehabilitation assessment in the future if she so desired.

The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Orders