Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Davis - [1991] FCA 446

Re: AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
And: KIM ALLISON DAVIS
No. Q G166 of 1990
FED No. 446
Administrative Law
30 FCR 467/14 AAR 99

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Heerey J.(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - award of compensation for work related aggravation or acceleration of asymptomatic, pre-existing medical condition - conflicting medical evidence - whether appeal raises a question of law - whether Tribunal provided adequate reasons for decision pursuant to s.43(2A) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

Administrative Law - form of order - jurisdiction of Administrative Appeals Tribunal to make determination as to future entitlement - s.37(1) Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975: ss.43(2A), 44(1)

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971: ss.21, 27(1), 29(2)(f), 37(1) and (2)

Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988: s.124

Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission (1989) 86 ALR 399

Commonwealth v Smith (1989) 10 AAR 277

Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Limited v Hankinson (1967) 117 CLR 19

Dennis Willcox Pty Ltd v FCT (1988) 79 ALR 267

Salisbury v Australian Postal Commission (1943) 43 SR(NSW) 157

HEARING

BRISBANE

#DATE 1:8:1991

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P. Bickford

Solicitors for the Applicant: Australian Government Solicitor

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr L. Stephens

Solicitors for the Respondent: Trilby Misso and Co

ORDER

The appeal be dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including reserved costs (if any).

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

JUDGE1

The right of appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT") conferred by s.44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 is restricted to appeals on a question of law.

The present appeal in my opinion fails substantially because it does not satisfy that requirement.
On 25 January 1991 the AAT gave written reasons for a decision consequent upon a request by the applicant ("Telecom") under s.43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. Those reasons were as follows:

1. This is an application to review a decision of a Delegate of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation dated 1 February 1988 which determined that in the case of the applicant "no incapacity for work or medical expenses incurred on and from 19 December 1986 are the result of the compensable injury of 21 March 1983."

2. The matter was heard in Brisbane on 21 and 22 November

1990. The applicant was represented by Mr Stephens of Counsel and the respondent was represented by Mrs Francis. At the conclusion of the evidence and after hearing the submissions of the representatives of the parties, the Tribunal gave reasons orally for the decision which it proposed to make. After further submissions by the representatives of both parties the Tribunal acceded to a request from the representatives that they be permitted to present to the Tribunal a draft decision in a form which they agreed to and…

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 Telecommunications Corporation v Davis 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: [1991] FCA 446
Decision Date: 01 AUGUST 1991

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Australian Telecommunications Corporation appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that had awarded compensation to Davis for work-related aggravation or acceleration of an asymptomatic, pre-existing medical condition. The AAT's decision was based on conflicting medical evidence, and the telecommunications corporation argued that the appeal raised a question of law and that the Tribunal did not provide adequate reasons for its decision under section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The Federal Court considered the appeal and the arguments presented by both parties.

The primary legal issues that the court had to address were whether the appeal raised a question of law and whether the AAT provided adequate reasons for its decision. The telecommunications corporation contended that the AAT failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which was a requirement under section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. The corporation argued that the AAT did not consider all relevant evidence and did not adequately address the conflicting medical evidence in its decision. Davis, on the other hand, maintained that the AAT's decision was based on a correct application of the law and that the reasons provided were sufficient.

The court found that the appeal did not raise a question of law and that the AAT had provided adequate reasons for its decision. The court held that the AAT was not required to provide detailed reasons for its decision, as long as the reasons provided were sufficient to enable a reviewing court to determine whether the decision was legally sound. The court found that the AAT had considered all relevant evidence and had provided adequate reasons for its decision, which was based on a correct application of the law. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the telecommunications corporation to pay Davis' costs of the appeal, including any reserved costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, including reserved costs (if any).

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 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.