Clement v Comcare

Case [2012] FCA 166

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Clement v Comcare [2012] FCA 166

Citation: Clement v Comcare [2012] FCA 166
Appeal from: Clement and Comcare [2010] AATA 296
Parties: KRISTINE CLEMENT v COMCARE
File number(s): ACD 18 of 2010
Judge: JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 2 March 2012
Catchwords: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) – whether questions of law arise - whether any breach of procedural fairness – appeal dismissed
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Census and Statistics Act 1905 (Cth)
Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases cited: Clement v Comcare [2007] FCA 2039
Clement v Comcare [2008] FCA 1779
Clement v Comcare [2008] FCA 1780
Clement v Comcare [2010] AATA 296
Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd (1979) 2 ALD 1
Telstra Corporation Limited v Hannaford (2006) 151 FCR 253; [2006] FCAFC 87
Date of hearing: 20 February 2012
Place: Sydney via video link to Canberra
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 30
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Dube
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

ACD 18 of 2010
BETWEEN:

KRISTINE CLEMENT
Applicant
AND:

COMCARE
Respondent

JUDGE:

JAGOT J

DATE OF ORDER:

2 MARCH 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

2.The interlocutory applications filed on 30 June 2011, 2 November 2011 and 23 November 2011 each be dismissed.

3.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal and each of the interlocutory applications, 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

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

ACD 18 of 2010
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

KRISTINE CLEMENT
Applicant
AND:

COMCARE
Respondent

JUDGE:

JAGOT J

DATE:

2 MARCH 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY VIA VIDEO LINK TO CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE APPEAL

  1. This is an appeal from orders of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) in the matter of Clement and Comcare [2010] AATA 296.

  2. The AAT affirmed eleven decisions of Comcare rejecting the applicant’s claims for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the CompensationAct). In short, the AAT was satisfied that the applicant’s incapacity and requirement for medical treatment did not arise from a compensable injury under the Compensation Act.

  3. Under s 44(1) of the AAT Act this appeal may be brought only on a question of law. The applicant’s notice of appeal identified some sixteen matters said to be questions of law and numerous associated grounds (most comprising a number of sub-grounds) contending, in various ways, that the AAT: - (i) lacked…

Continue reading Clement v Comcare

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Clement v Comcare [2012] FCA 166
Case
[2012] FCA 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Clement v Comcare, the appellant, Clement, appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that dismissed his claim for compensation for psychiatric injury. The dispute centred on the AAT's determination that Clement's claim was not accepted because it was found that he had not suffered a psychiatric injury as a result of his employment. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were whether any questions of law arose from the AAT's decision and whether there was any breach of procedural fairness in the AAT's process. The court examined the evidence presented to the AAT and the reasoning provided in the AAT's decision to determine if there were any errors in the application of the law or procedural shortcomings. The court also considered whether the AAT had properly exercised its discretion in dismissing Clement's claim.

The court found that there were no errors of law in the AAT's decision and that the AAT had properly exercised its discretion. The court held that the AAT's decision was not affected by any procedural unfairness. The court also found that the AAT had given proper consideration to the evidence presented and had made findings that were reasonably open on the material before it. The appeal was dismissed, and the interlocutory applications filed were also dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and each of the interlocutory applications, as agreed or taxed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The interlocutory applications filed on 30 June 2011, 2 November 2011 and 23 November 2011 each be dismissed.

3. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal and each of the interlocutory applications, as agreed or taxed.

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

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.