Australian Telecommunications Commission v Newson , P.J - [1985] FCA 315

Re: AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
And: PETER JOHN NEWSON
No. WAG 114 of 1984
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Woodward J.
Toohey J.
Pincus J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Commonwealth employees compensation - appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal allowing employee's request for lump sum redemption of further payments - employees earning $40 nett per week as self-employed gardener and carpenter - whether partially or totally incapacitated for employment - whether self-employment must be profitable - proposed use of lump sum in small business - whether decision-maker should consider details of proposal - whether lump sum prospect can be taken into account in assessing level of incapacity - meaning of "particularly advantageous to the employee."

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 s.44 (1)

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 ss.26,49

HEARING

PERTH
#DATE 12:7:1985

ORDER

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

(Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by 0.36 of the Federal Court Rules.)

JUDGE1

This is an appeal, on questions of law pursuant to s.44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('the Tribunal') in a matter arising under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 ('the Act'). The questions of law relate to the respondent's claimed entitlement to continue to be treated as only partially incapacitated for employment, and to have his future payments of compensation redeemed by payment of a lump sum.

The case takes on an unusual appearance when it is realized that it is the employee who is alleging partial incapacity and the employer which claims that he should really be classed as totally incapacitated. The employee's attitude is explained by the fact that he can only receive a lump sum redemption if he is partially incapacitated and, since he wants to establish himself in a small business, purchase a home, and invest any surplus monies, he requires funds to meet these capital expenses.

The employer argues that the proposed business would probably not prove viable and that the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation ('the Commissioner') - who refused the original application for redemption - has a duty to protect the respondent from his own decision to sacrifice a total incapacity pension, to which he could establish entitlement, for a doubtful business venture. The Tribunal decided that the respondent's payments should be redeemed and it referred the matter back to the Commissioner to determine an appropriate lump sum. This is the decision appealed against.

The sections of the Act which are relevant to this dispute are ss.26 and 49, which are in the following terms:

"26. For the purposes of this Part, an employee shall be deemed to be totally incapacited for work if his incapacity is such that he is fitted only for employment of a kind that is not commonly available and employment of that kind is not reasonably available to him."

"49. (1) Subject to this section, where payments of compensation in respect of an injury…

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 Australian Telecommunications Commission v Newson , P.J

Details

AGLC: Australian Telecommunications Commission v. Newson , P.J. [1985] FCA 315
Case: [1985] FCA 315
Decision Date: 12 JULY 1985

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Australian Telecommunications Commission v Newson involves an employee of the Commonwealth who sought a lump sum redemption of further payments for his superannuation benefits. The employee, who earned approximately $40 per week as a self-employed gardener and carpenter, argued that he was either partially or totally incapacitated for employment, which would entitle him to a lump sum payout. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) allowed the employee's request, and the Commonwealth appealed this decision to the Federal Court.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the employee's self-employment needed to be profitable for the lump sum redemption to be appropriate and whether the decision-maker should consider the details of the employee's proposed use of the lump sum in a small business. Additionally, the court had to determine if the prospect of a lump sum could be taken into account when assessing the level of the employee's incapacity and the meaning of the term "particularly advantageous to the employee."

The Federal Court held that the AAT was correct in its decision to allow the lump sum redemption. The court found that the employee's self-employment did not need to be profitable for the lump sum to be considered particularly advantageous. Furthermore, the court held that the decision-maker was not required to consider the specifics of the employee's proposed use of the lump sum. The court also determined that the prospect of a lump sum could be taken into account when assessing the level of incapacity, and in this case, it was found to be particularly advantageous to the employee.

The appeal was dismissed with costs. The court's decision confirmed the AAT's ruling and clarified the legal standards for lump sum redemptions in cases of Commonwealth employees. The court's interpretation of the relevant terms and conditions provided guidance for future cases involving similar circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

(Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by 0.36 of the Federal Court Rules.)

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.