Baker and Telstra Corporation Limited - [2006] AATA 400

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 400
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A2005/235

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re WILLIAM GREGORY BAKER

Applicant

And

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member
Date9 May 2006
PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision under review is affirmed.
..........................................
Mr S. Webb, Member

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION - polymorphic light eruption - liability for aggravation accepted - partial incapacity redemption - subsequent claim for further incapacity payments - not totally incapacitated for work - decision affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 124
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 ss 26, 45, 46, 49, 50
Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985 ss 35, 45
Re Baker and Australian Telecommunications Commission (AAT 4232, 24 March 1988)
Thompson v Armstrong and Royse Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 585
Ball v William Hunt and Sons Ltd (1912) AC 496
Williams v Metropolitan Coal Company Limited (1948) 76 CLR 431
Cage Developments Pty Limited v Schubert (1983) 151 CLR 584
REASONS FOR DECISION

9 May 2006 Mr S. Webb, Member

1.      William Baker is seeking payment of compensation for incapacity as a result of a work related injury that occurred in 1981, in relation to which he was paid a lump sum in redemption of his partial incapacity entitlements in 1988. Telstra Corporation Limited (“Telstra”) decided to reject his claim for further incapacity payments. Mr Baker has applied for review of that decision.
2.      The matter came on for hearing before me in Canberra on 1 May 2006. Mr Baker gave oral evidence as did Dr Paul Freeman and Dr Edmund Lobel. Materials were tendered and labelled during the hearing.
factual context
3.      The background facts are not in dispute. From 1972 to 1982 Mr Baker was employed by forerunners of Telstra (the Post-Master General and the Australian Telecommunications Commission). In 1981 he was employed as a Telecommunications Technician when he was injured in the course of his employment. By a consent decision of the Tribunal on 15 February 1983, liability was accepted for a compensable injury in the form of “aggravation of polymorphous light eruption” by exposure to fluorescent light. The date of injury was 16 February 1981. Amounts of compensation for total and partial incapacity were paid to Mr Baker pursuant to ss 45 and 46 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (“the 1971 Act”) then in force.
4.      Mr Baker was retired on invalidity grounds with effect from 12 July 1982.
5.      In 1987 Mr Baker requested payment of a lump sum in redemption of his compensation entitlements under s 46 of the 1971 Act for partial incapacity. His request was denied. However, on 24 March 1988 the Tribunal decided that the Commonwealth’s liability to make further payments for partial incapacity was to be redeemed by payment of a lump sum to Mr Baker pursuant to s 49 of that Act (Re Baker and Australian Telecommunications Commission AAT 4232, 24 March…

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 Baker and Telstra Corporation Limited

Details

AGLC: Baker and Telstra Corporation Limited [2006] AATA 400
Case: [2006] AATA 400
Decision Date: 9 May 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Baker, initiated proceedings against Telstra Corporation Limited in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, seeking compensation for an injury sustained at work. Baker had developed polymorphic light eruption, a condition that caused severe skin reactions when exposed to sunlight. The Tribunal had previously accepted that the condition was aggravated by his employment and awarded compensation accordingly. Baker sought further compensation on the basis that the condition rendered him totally incapacitated for work. Telstra contested this, asserting that Baker was not totally incapacitated for work. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court, which had to determine whether Baker was entitled to further compensation on the grounds of total incapacity for work.

The court considered whether Baker's condition constituted total incapacity for work, thereby warranting additional compensation. The legal issue centred on interpreting the relevant statutory provisions and determining the extent of Baker's incapacity. The court referred to previous case law and legislation, including the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, and the Social Security and Repatriation Legislation Amendment Act 1985. The court examined the principles established in cases such as Thompson v Armstrong and Royse Pty Ltd, Ball v William Hunt and Sons Ltd, and Williams v Metropolitan Coal Company Limited. The court also considered the decision in Re Baker and Australian Telecommunications Commission, which had previously addressed Baker's claim.

The court concluded that Baker's condition, while serious, did not render him totally incapacitated for work. The evidence indicated that Baker could perform some work, albeit with restrictions. The court found that the Tribunal's assessment of Baker's capacity to work was consistent with the evidence presented and the applicable legal standards. The court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, finding that Baker was not entitled to further compensation on the basis of total incapacity for work.

The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, rejecting Baker's claim for further compensation. The court held that the Tribunal's findings were supported by the evidence and the relevant statutory provisions. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision under review was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is affirmed.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		WILLIAM GREGORY BAKER