Bui and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation) - [2016] AATA 135

Bui and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation) [2016] AATA 135 (8 March 2016)

Division:  GENERAL DIVISION
File Number:  2012/4709
Re:  NINA BUI
APPLICANT

And:AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal  Deputy President S A Forgie
Date  8 March 2016
Place  Melbourne

The Tribunal decides to:
affirm the decision of the respondent dated 20 August 2012 affirming its earlier decision dated 4 July 2012 that the applicant has suffered neither an injury nor an aggravation of an injury.

……[sgd]……………….
Deputy President

CATCHWORDS – COMPENSATION – whether injury or aggravation of injury in relevant period – decision affirmed.

LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – s 37
Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – ss 4(1), 5(1), 5(1)(b), 5(1)(c), 5(1A), 5A, 5A(1), 5A(2), 5B, 5B(1), 5B(2), 5B(3), 7(4), 14(1), 14(2), 14(3), 108E(a), 108E(d)
CASES
Bui v Australian Postal Corporation [2010] FCA 1021
Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47; (2006) 226 CLR 535; 229 ALR 445; 91 ALD 552
Comcare v Etheridge [2006] FCAFC 27; (2006) 149 FCR 522; 227 ALR 75; 42 AAR 335; 90 ALD 31
Comcare v Mooi [1996] FCA 1587; 69 FCR 439
Commonwealth v Beattie [1981] FCA 88; 35 ALR 369
Higgins v Galibal Pty Ltd (1998) 45 NSWLR 45
Kennedy Cleaning Services Pty Limited v Petkoska [2000] HCA 45; (2000) 200 CLR 286; 174 ALR 626
Ogden Industries Pty Ltd v Lucas [1967] HCA 30; (1967) CLR 537
Re Bui and Australian Postal Corporation [2009] AATA 803
Re Madden and Australian Postal Corporation [2008] AATA 411
Sherritt Gordon Mines Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1977] VicRp 42; [1977] VR 342; (1976) 10 ALR 441; 76 ATC 4130
REASONS FOR DECISION

Section 14(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) provides that “… Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with the Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work or impairment.”[1] The Australian Postal Corporation (APC) is a licensed corporation under the SRC Act. As one of its employees, Ms Nina Bui was an employee within the meaning of ss 5(1) and (1A) of the SRC Act. In 2006, she first suffered from major depression with psychotic symptoms and anxiety (pre-existing condition) and ceased work on 13 April 2006 as a consequence. When Ms Bui claimed compensation in respect of her pre-existing condition, APC denied liability.[2] Its decision was affirmed by a differently constituted Tribunal[3] and the Federal Court dismissed an appeal from that decision.[4]

[1] Section 14(1) is subject to qualifications in ss 14(2) and (3) but they are not relevant in this case.

[2] As a licensee, APC’s functions include those of determining and managing claims. In doing so, it must meet all of Comcare’s obligations: SRC Act; ss 108E(a) and (d).

[3] Re Bui and Australian Postal Corporation [2009] AATA 803; Senior Member Friedman

[4] Bui v…

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 Bui and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation) 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: [2016] AATA 135
Decision Date: 8 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bui and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation) involved Bui, the applicant, and the Australian Postal Corporation, the respondent, with the dispute before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Bui sought compensation for an injury she claimed to have suffered while working for the respondent, arguing that her injury was either caused by or aggravated by her employment. The Tribunal was tasked with reviewing the respondent's decisions to deny Bui's claim for compensation.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Bui had suffered an injury or an aggravation of an injury during the relevant period. This required the Tribunal to examine the evidence provided, the respondent's findings, and the applicable legal principles regarding workers' compensation claims. Bui argued that the Tribunal should overturn the respondent's decisions, while the respondent maintained that Bui had not suffered any injury or aggravation that warranted compensation.

The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not support Bui's claims. It found that the respondent's decisions were reasonable and based on a proper consideration of the evidence. The Tribunal upheld the respondent's determination that Bui had not suffered an injury or an aggravation of an injury. The Tribunal affirmed the respondent's decisions, thereby dismissing Bui's application for compensation. The decision highlighted the importance of substantiating claims with credible evidence and the Tribunal's role in reviewing administrative decisions within the framework of the applicable legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal decides to:

affirm the decision of the respondent dated 20 August 2012 affirming its earlier decision dated 4 July 2012 that the applicant has suffered neither an injury nor an aggravation of an injury.

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.