Blackman, G.J. v Australia Telecommunications Corporation

Case [1990] FCA 427


Re: GEORGE JOHN BLACKMAN
And: AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
No. NSW G350 of 1990
FED No. 427
Compensation

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Pincus(1), Foster(1) and Hill(1) JJ.
CATCHWORDS

Compensation - Whether applicant entitled to compensation for "permanent impairment" under s.24(1) Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 - mesothelioma contributed to by exposure to asbestos while Commonwealth employee - condition arose prior to commencement of current Act - effect of transitional provisions of Act - meaning of "permanent impairment".

Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss.24, 25, 44, 45, 124(3)

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 16:8:1990

Counsel for the applicant: Mr M. Joseph

Solicitors for the applicant: Turner Freeman

Counsel for the respondent: Mr C. Gee QC and Mr J. Curtis

Solicitors for the respondent: Sparke, Helmore and Withycomb

ORDER

The application be dismissed.

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

JUDGE1

This is an appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a determination made by a delegate of the respondent under the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the 1988 Act"). The determination is to the effect that the applicant suffers from mesothelioma, that the applicant's employment by the Postmaster General's Department from 7 May 1946 to 17 October 1960 has not materially contributed to the contraction, aggravation, acceleration or recurrence of that disease and that the applicant is not entitled to compensation.

  1. The applicant, born on 15 May 1917, worked as a motor vehicle fitter during service in the Army beginning in 1940, and from 1946 worked until 1960 as a motor mechanic in the Postmaster General's Department. Throughout the whole of this time, the nature of his work exposed him to asbestos. He was retired medically unfit in 1960 on the ground of disabilities related to war service, namely hypertension and anxiety, and did not thereafter engage in paid employment. In 1986 he began to have trouble with his lungs and in November 1988 he was diagnosed as having mesothelioma. The Tribunal held that the disease, which is a malignant and fatal lung condition, commonly caused by asbestos, was "contributed to, to the required extent, by his employment with the respondent". The liabilities under the relevant legislation incurred by the Postmaster General have, it was common ground, become those of the respondent.

  2. The matter argued before the Tribunal was whether the applicant is entitled to compensation under s.24(1) of the 1988 Act, which reads as follows:

"Where an injury to an employee results in a permanent impairment, the Commission is liable to pay compensation to the employee in respect of the injury."
  1. It was common ground that the applicant has, at relevant times, been an "employee" within the meaning of that provision and we find it unnecessary for the purposes of the present case to consider the correctness of that view.

  2. The Tribunal held that the applicant had no…

Continue reading Blackman, G.J. v Australia Telecommunications Corporation

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Blackman, G.J. v. Australia Telecommunications Corporation [1990] FCA 427
Case
[1990] FCA 427
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Blackman, G.J. v Australia Telecommunications Corporation, the applicant sought compensation for a "permanent impairment" caused by exposure to asbestos during his employment with the Commonwealth. This exposure led to the development of mesothelioma. The dispute arose under the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, specifically concerning the interpretation of section 24(1) which outlines the conditions for entitlement to compensation. The key issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for the permanent impairment given that his condition predated the commencement of the Act and whether the transitional provisions of the Act applied to his situation.

The court had to determine the meaning of "permanent impairment" as defined by the Act and whether the applicant's condition fell within this definition. It also needed to examine the effect of the transitional provisions of the Act on claims that arose before the Act came into force. The court considered whether the applicant's condition, which manifested prior to the Act but was contributed to by his employment, qualified as a "permanent impairment" under the Act. The court found that the condition did not meet the criteria for compensation under the Act's definition, as it did not qualify as a "permanent impairment" that arose during the employment period as defined by the legislation.

The court held that the applicant was not entitled to compensation for his condition under section 24(1) of the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The court's reasoning was that the condition arose prior to the commencement of the Act, and the transitional provisions did not apply to provide retrospective entitlement to compensation. The court dismissed the application on the basis that the applicant's claim did not satisfy the criteria for compensation under the Act. The court's decision was grounded in the interpretation of the statutory language and the legislative history surrounding the Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed.

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.