Carney and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for an extension of time by Ms Carney to lodge an appeal against a decision by Comcare. Ms Carney sought to have her psychological condition, tinnitus, and sensorineural hearing loss, and potentially a condition related to her right eye, considered together. Her former solicitors had advised her that her case lacked merit, leading to a delay in lodging her application for review.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant Ms Carney an extension of time to lodge her application. This involved considering the explanation for the delay, any prejudice to Comcare, and whether Ms Carney had an arguable case. The Tribunal also had regard to the provisions of section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, which allows for extensions of time where the Tribunal is satisfied it is reasonable to do so.

The Tribunal found that Ms Carney had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, attributing it to the advice received from her former solicitors. It noted that she had acted promptly upon seeking a second opinion from her current solicitor, following advice from her psychologist. The Tribunal also considered that Ms Carney appeared to have an arguable case that she had suffered a compensable injury. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that any prejudice to Comcare from granting the extension would be slight.

Consequently, the Tribunal was satisfied that it was appropriate to grant the extension of time. The time for Ms Carney to make an application for review of Comcare’s decision was extended to 29 November 2017, the date on which her application was actually lodged.