Burke and Telstra Corporation Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 50 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 843

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2009/2403

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re SHANE ALLAN BURKE

Applicant

And

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member K Bean

Date29 November 2011

PlaceAdelaide

Decision

1.     The decision under review is varied so as to provide that:

(a) between 4 May 2009 and 29 November 2009, Mr Burke was entitled to be paid incapacity payments, pursuant to Part II, Division 3 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act), on the basis that the amount per week that he was able to earn in suitable employment was nil;

(b)       from 30 November 2009 to date, Mr Burke’s entitlement to incapacity payments should be calculated on the basis that the amount per week that he was able to earn in suitable employment was $700; and

(c)       as at the date of this decision, Mr Burke’s ability to earn in suitable employment is $700.00 per week.

2.     The matter is remitted to the respondent for calculation of the amount of incapacity payments payable to Mr Burke as a result of this decision.

3.      The Tribunal:

(a)      reserves liberty to apply within 14 days in relation to the costs of the proceedings; and

(b) orders that in the absence of any such application, the respondent is to pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant pursuant to s 67(8) of the SRC Act.

..............................................

K BEAN
  (Senior Member)

NWE is the amount of the employee’s normal weekly earnings.

…

(4)In determining, for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), the amount per week that an employee is able to earn in suitable employment, Comcare shall have regard to:

(a)where the employee is in employment (including self-employment)—the amount per week that the employee is earning in that employment;

(b)where, after becoming incapacitated for work, the employee received an offer of suitable employment and failed to accept that offer—the amount per week that the employee would be earning in that employment if he or she were engaged in that employment;

(c)where, after becoming incapacitated for work, the employee received an offer of suitable employment and, having accepted that offer, failed to engage, or to continue to engage, in that employment—the amount per week that the employee would be earning in that employment if he or she were engaged in that employment;

(d)where, after becoming incapacitated for work, the employee received an offer of suitable employment on condition that the employee completed a reasonable rehabilitation or vocational retraining program and the employee failed to fulfil that condition—the amount that the employee would be earning in that employment if he or she were engaged in that employment;

(e)where, after becoming incapacitated for work, the employee has failed to seek suitable employment—the amount per week that, having regard to the state of the labour-market at the relevant time, the employee could reasonably be expected to earn…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Burke and Telstra Corporation Ltd 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
[2011] AATA 843
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Burke and Telstra Corporation Ltd, the applicant, Mr Burke, sought to review a decision regarding his entitlement to incapacity payments under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The dispute centered on the extent of Mr Burke's incapacity and his ability to earn income in suitable employment. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) and subsequently reviewed by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether Mr Burke had failed to seek suitable employment and, if so, whether this failure was reasonable, as well as determining the amount Mr Burke could have earned in suitable employment. The court examined evidence regarding Mr Burke's health, efforts to find employment, and the availability of jobs suitable to his skills and circumstances. The assessment of Mr Burke's capacity to work and his efforts to secure employment were critical in resolving these issues.

The Federal Court found that Mr Burke was entitled to incapacity payments from 4 May 2009 to 29 November 2009, with his ability to earn in suitable employment assessed at nil during this period. From 30 November 2009, the court determined that Mr Burke’s ability to earn in suitable employment was $700 per week. The decision under review was varied accordingly, and the matter was remitted to the respondent for recalculation of the incapacity payments due to Mr Burke. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed examination of the evidence presented, focusing on Mr Burke's health condition and employment opportunities.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision under review is varied so as to provide that:

(a) between 4 May 2009 and 29 November 2009, Mr Burke was entitled to be paid incapacity payments, pursuant to Part II, Division 3 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act), on the basis that the amount per week that he was able to earn in suitable employment was nil;

(b) from 30 November 2009 to date, Mr Burke’s entitlement to incapacity payments should be calculated on the basis that the amount per week that he was able to earn in suitable employment was $700; and

(c) as at the date of this decision, Mr Burke’s ability to earn in suitable employment is $700.00 per week.

2. The matter is remitted to the respondent for calculation of the amount of incapacity payments payable to Mr Burke as a result of this decision.

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.