Coghlan and Comcare (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Mr Coghlan for permanent impairment and non-economic loss compensation under sections 24 and 27 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), against a decision by Comcare. The presiding Senior Member, B J Illingworth, was required to determine whether Mr Coghlan's application had reasonable prospects of success, as contemplated by section 42B(1) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth).

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Coghlan's claim for permanent impairment and non-economic loss was so lacking in merit that it should be dismissed summarily under section 42B(1) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975*. This provision allows the AAT to dismiss an application if it is satisfied that the application is frivolous or vexatious, has no reasonable prospect of success, or is an abuse of process.

Senior Member Illingworth reasoned that for an application to have reasonable prospects of success, there must be a discernible legal or factual basis upon which the applicant could establish their claim. In this instance, the Tribunal found that Mr Coghlan had failed to provide sufficient evidence or legal argument to demonstrate that he suffered from a permanent impairment or was entitled to non-economic loss compensation as defined by the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988*. Without such a foundation, the application was deemed to have no reasonable prospects of success.

Consequently, the Tribunal ordered that Mr Coghlan's application be dismissed under section 42B(1) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975*.