Australian Capital Territory v Ross

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Capital Territory v Ross [2024] FCA 1229  

Appeal from:

Re Ross and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation) [2023] AATA 3569

File number(s):

ACD 69 of 2023

Judgment of:

NEEDHAM J

Date of judgment:

23 October 2024

Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – appeal allowed by consent  

Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 20(5)(b), 25(2B)(b)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 4(9)(b)

Cases cited:

Bradken Limited v Norcast S.ár.L (2013) 219 FCR 101; [2013] FCAFC 123

CQX18 v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 142

PYDZ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCAFC 14

Redbubble Ltd v Hells Angels Motorcycle Corporation (Australia) Pty Ltd [2021] FCA 1467

Re Ross and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation) [2023] AATA 3569

Division:

Fair Work Division

Registry:

Australian Capital Territory

National Practice Area:

Employment and Industrial Relations

Number of paragraphs:

9

Date of hearing:

Heard on the papers

Place:

Sydney

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Sparke Helmore Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

The Respondent was self-represented

ORDERS

ACD 69 of 2023

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Applicant

AND:

GERARD ROSS

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:	NEEDHAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	23 OCTOBER 2024

BY CONSENT, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The Applicant is given leave to amend its notice of appeal.

2.The appeal is allowed.

3.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 3 November 2023 is set aside.

4.The reviewable decision made on 17 February 2023 is affirmed.

5.No order as to costs.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

NEEDHAM J:

1. Before me is an appeal from a decision from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT): Re Ross and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation) [2023] AATA 3569.

2. The appeal was listed for hearing on 29 October 2024, but the hearing was vacated in light of the parties reaching an agreement that the appeal should be allowed by consent.

3. In accordance with the Court’s Consent Orders Involving a Federal Tribunal Practice Note (GPN-TRIB), the parties submitted short notes with the consent orders sought. The notes relevantly stated:

   2.This is an appeal on a question of law from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 3 November 2023.

   3.The Tribunal decided to set aside a reviewable decision made by the present Applicant (the Australian Capital Territory, or the ACT) and the matter was remitted to the ACT for determination on a basis consistent with the reasons of the Tribunal.

   4.In its reasons, the Tribunal relevantly found that the present Respondent (Gerard Ross, or Mr Ross) suffered an incapacity for work within the meaning of s 4(9)(b) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act). That finding was significant because Part II Division 3 of the SRC Act provides for certain liabilities of Comcare (or, in this case, a licensee) to pay compensation to…