Bis Industries Limited v Dale

The appeal in Bis Industries Limited v Dale was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The case involved a dispute between Mr Dale, an employee who had been injured at work, and his employer, Bis Industries Limited. Mr Dale had suffered an injury at work and had been certified unfit to work until 4 February 2014. He subsequently returned to work under a rehabilitation programme, performing administrative tasks and driving motor vehicles with automatic transmissions and power steering. On 15 September 2014, Mr Dale was found smoking at the worksite, which was in breach of the employer’s policies. Consequently, on 23 September 2014, Mr Dale was notified that his employment had been terminated for wilful misconduct. The employer subsequently determined that Mr Dale had no current entitlement to compensation under s 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), stating that he had failed to continue to engage in suitable employment due to the termination of his employment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had failed to address an argument, failed to provide reasons for rejecting an argument, and whether the AAT had given adequate reasons for its decision. Additionally, the court considered the effect of the termination of employment for misconduct on compensation under s 19 of the Act. The court found that the AAT had failed to adequately address Mr Dale's argument regarding the impact of the employer's decision to terminate his employment on his entitlement to compensation. The AAT also failed to provide reasons for rejecting this argument and did not give adequate reasons for its decision.

The court allowed the appeal and remitted the case back to the AAT for reconsideration. The Federal Court ordered that the parties file any submissions as to costs by 4 pm on 24 July 2017, and any responses by 4 pm on 31 July 2017. If the parties complied with these orders, the question of costs would be decided on the papers. If no submissions were filed, there would be no order as to costs.