Blewitt v Telstra Corporation

[2013] FCA 110

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Blewitt v Telstra Corporation [2013] FCA 110

Citation:		Blewitt v Telstra Corporation [2013] FCA 110
Appeal from:		Blewitt and Telstra Corporation [2012] AATA 25
Parties:		DIANNE BLEWITT v TELSTRA CORPORATION
File number(s):		ACD 18 of 2012
Judge:		JAGOT J
Date of judgment:		21 February 2013
Catchwords:		ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – questions of law – questions do not arise – appeal dismissed
Legislation:		Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases cited:		Commission for Safety Rehabilitation & Compensation of Commonwealth Employees v Rawling (1993) 42 FCR 421
Date of hearing:	30 January 2013
Place:	Canberra
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Number of paragraphs:	17
Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr D Shillington
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Brian Hatch Solicitor
Counsel for the Respondent:	S Whybrow
Solicitor for the Respondent:	DLA Piper Australia

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 18 of 2012

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	DIANNE BLEWITT Applicant
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION Respondent

JUDGE:	JAGOT J
DATE OF ORDER:	21 FEBRUARY 2013
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY VIA VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal as agreed or taxed.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
CANBERRA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	ACD 18 of 2012

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:	DIANNE BLEWITT Applicant
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION Respondent

JUDGE:	JAGOT J
DATE:	21 FEBRUARY 2013
PLACE:	SYDNEY VIA VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE APPEAL

1. This is an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) delivered on 19 January 2012 affirming a decision by Telstra Corporation to reduce the applicant’s entitlement to compensation under s 19(4)(c) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the SRCAct).

2. Pursuant to s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act), an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal may only be brought on a question of law.  The applicant identified three questions of law in her notice of appeal as follows:

   (1)whether the Tribunal erred in law in refusing to consider the reasons for the applicant’s relocating to Brisbane when assessing whether or not the applicant’s failure to continue to engage in employment was reasonable (s 19(4)(g) of the SRC Act) (the relocation point);

   (2)whether the Tribunal erred in law in refusing to consider the advice given to the applicant by a claims manager on behalf of the respondent when assessing whether or not the applicant’s failure to continue to engage in employment was reasonable (s 19(4)(g) of the SRC Act) (the claims manager’s advice); and

   (3)whether the Tribunal erred in law in refusing to consider the advice given to the applicant by Dr Eaton as to the suitability of her call centre employment when assessing…