Legal Research
Cases
Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn

Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn

Link copied

Case Copied 10 April 2003 28 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn [2003] FCA 318
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – compensation of Commonwealth government employees – Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – whether a decision to cease compensation under s 14 precludes a claim for permanent impairment under s 24 – whether a reviewable decision made under s 60
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 3(2)(a), 44
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 14, 15, 24, 60, 62, 64, 69
Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753; (1999) 56 ALD 84 considered
Plumb v Comcare (1992) 39 FCR 236 (FC) cited
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION v HENDRIKUS JOSEPHUS OUDYN
Q30 OF 2002
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION v D W MULLER IN HIS CAPACITY AS A SENIOR MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL AND HENDRIKUS JOSEPHUS OUDYN
Q120 OF 2002
COOPER J
BRISBANE
10 APRIL 2003

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q30 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
APPLICANT

AND:

HENDRIKUS JOSEPHUS OUDYN
RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q120 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
APPLICANT

AND:

D W MULLER IN HIS CAPACITY AS A SENIOR MEMBER
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

HENDRIKUS JOSEPHUS OUDYN
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 APRIL 2003

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application in proceedings Q30 of 2002 is dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings in Q30 of 2002, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed.
3.The application in proceedings Q120 of 2002 is dismissed.
4.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the proceedings in Q120 of 2002, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q30 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
APPLICANT

AND:

HENDRIKUS JOSEPHUS OUDYN
RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Q120 OF 2002

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
APPLICANT

AND:

D W MULLER IN HIS CAPACITY AS A SENIOR MEMBER
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
FIRST RESPONDENT

HENDRIKUS JOSEPHUS OUDYN
SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

COOPER J

DATE:

10 APRIL 2003

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BACKGROUND

At all relevant times Hendrikus Oudyn (“Mr Oudyn”) was an employee of the Australian Postal Commission (“APC”). On 2 August 1999, Mr Oudyn was injured in the course of his employment. As required by ss 53 and 54 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”), he gave the requisite notice and lodged a written “Claim for Rehabilitation and Compensation” in the approved form. Attached to the claim form were details of the medical expenses incurred by him to the date of the claim (5 August 1999). Mr Oudyn was off work for a short period of time and then returned to work on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] FCA 318
Decision Date: 10 APRIL 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose from the Australian Postal Corporation's (APC) refusal to pay compensation for permanent impairment to Mr Oudyn under Section 24 of the Public Sector Management Act 1994 (Cth). Mr Oudyn had initially sought compensation under Section 14 of the Act, which was denied. He subsequently filed a claim for permanent impairment under Section 24, which was also rejected. The Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed the decision and found that Mr Oudyn was entitled to claim under Section 24 and that the AAT had jurisdiction to review the matter. APC challenged this decision in the Federal Court, arguing that the AAT lacked jurisdiction and that the claim for compensation under Section 24 was invalid because no liability to pay compensation under Section 14 had been determined.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the AAT had jurisdiction to review Mr Oudyn's claim for compensation under Section 24 of the Act and whether such a claim could be made in the absence of a prior determination of liability under Section 14. APC argued that the decision of the claims manager that no further entitlement to compensation existed under Section 14 necessarily included a determination that there was no permanent impairment. Therefore, they contended that the AAT did not have jurisdiction to review Mr Oudyn's subsequent claim for lump sum compensation under Section 24, as no liability to pay compensation under Section 14 had been established. APC further argued that the claim for compensation under Section 24 was not a reviewable decision as it had not been assessed at the primary or reconsideration levels.

The Federal Court held that the AAT did indeed have jurisdiction to review Mr Oudyn's claim for compensation under Section 24. The Court found that the AAT's conclusion that Mr Oudyn was entitled to make a claim for permanent impairment and that the AAT had jurisdiction to review this matter was correct. The Court disagreed with APC's interpretation of the decision in Lees v Comcare, which it found did not support the proposition that a determination by a Claims Manager that the effects of the claimant's injuries had ceased barred the employee from claiming other compensation benefits. The Court also noted that the claim for compensation under Section 24 involved a re-evaluation of the earlier decision, thereby providing a basis for the AAT's review. As a result, the Court dismissed APC's application and ordered them to pay the respondents' costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application in proceedings Q30 of 2002 is dismissed.

2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings in Q30 of 2002, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed.

3. The application in proceedings Q120 of 2002 is dismissed.

4. The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to the proceedings in Q120 of 2002, including reserved costs, if any, to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

COOPER J

APC submitted that :(a)the decision of the claims manager made on 18 May 2000 that there was no further entitlement to compensation under s 14(1) of the Act necessarily included a determination that the injury did not result in permanent impairment;(b)while there existed a determination that no permanent impairment arose in consequence of a compensable injury under s 14(1) of the Act, no occasion arose to assess a claim for lump sum compensation in accordance with s 24 of the Act;(c)the Act did not contemplate or provide for a lawful claim under s 24 of the Act, in the absence of a determination of liability to pay compensation under s 14(1) of the Act;(d)not being under any statutory duty to determine the claim made under cover of the letter dated 12 February 2001, the failure to process the claim does not amount to a reviewable decision; and(d)the contentions relied upon followed from the decision of a Full Court of this Court in Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753; (1999) 56 ALD 84.THE AAT DECISION The AAT, after referring to the submissions before it, and considering the judgment in Lees v Comcare, concluded :“8.In Ms. Lees’ case the Court decided that the AAT does not have jurisdiction to review a specific claim under a specific section of the Act unless the first two tiers of the review process have been completed for that claim. The Court envisaged that a claim could be made under s 24 of the Act where no determination of liability under s 14 of the Act has been made. The issue of liability to pay to the employee compensation for permanent impairment can be determined under s 24 notwithstanding no earlier determination under s 14 has been made.9.There is nothing in the judgment in Ms Lees’ case which is authority for the proposition that a determination by a Claims Manager under s 14 of the Act that the effects of the claimant’s injuries had ceased, ends the matter and that the employee is thereafter barred from claiming any of the other compensation benefits to which he may be entitled, and that he may not have the matter of his claim reviewed.10.It is the decision of the Tribunal that the applicant was entitled to make a claim for permanent impairment pursuant to s 24 of the Act and that the claim automatically involved a re-evaluation of the decision of the Claims Manager. His claim was initially rejected on 27 February 2001. That rejection was affirmed on 8 March 2001. He has had his claim assessed by the two tiers necessary to allow him to apply to the AAT for review of his claim.11.The AAT has the jurisdiction to review this matter.”PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT APC commenced proceedings purportedly under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”) seeking review of the decision. Those proceedings were not pressed and in lieu proceedings seeking relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) were filed on the basis that the decision of the AAT was made in error and without jurisdiction. APC submitted that the claim by Mr Oudyn made on 12 February 2001 for compensation for permanent impairment under s 24 of the Act has not been the subject of any primary decision, or reconsideration decision under s 62 of the Act, on the part of APC. Thus, it submitted, there was no reviewable decision as defined in s 60(1) of the Act. Absent a reviewable decision, as defined, there was no jurisdiction under s 64 of the Act or under the AAT Act, open to the AAT to review Mr Oudyn’s application under s 24 of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: COOPER J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q30 OF 2002

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION APPLICANT
AND:	HENDRIKUS JOSEPHUS OUDYN RESPONDENT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	Q120 OF 2002

JUDGE:	COOPER J
DATE:	10 APRIL 2003
PLACE:	BRISBANE