Coles and Australian Postal Corporation - [2011] AATA 62

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No: 2007/5162

General Administrative Division )
Re: Ronald Coles
Applicant

And: Australian Postal Corporation
Respondent
DIRECTION
TRIBUNAL:             The Hon. Brian Tamberlin QC, Deputy President
DATE:                      8 February 2011
PLACE:                   Sydney

The Tribunal directs the Registrar, pursuant to subsection 43AA(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, to alter the text of the decision in this application as follows:

The date in paragraph 16 of this decision should read 6 December 2001 not 6 December 2011.

...............[sgd]....................................................
The Hon. Brian Tamberlin QC
Presiding Member
Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 62
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No. 2007/5162

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re RONALD COLES

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal The Hon. Brian Tamberlin QC, Deputy President
Mr Dean Letcher QC, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member.
Date4 February 2011
PlaceSydney

Decision The decision under review is set aside and in its place the Tribunal substitutes a decision that the Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Applicant pursuant to sections 16 and 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 from 25 July 2007 to date and continuing.
.................[sgd].............................
The Hon. Brian Tamberlin QC
Presiding Member

CATCHWORDS
WORKERS COMPENSATION – Aggravation of back condition – whether aggravation of condition had ceased - pathological change not necessary to constitute aggravation - issue estoppel and res judicata submissions rejected - Applicant has present and continuing entitlement – decision set aside
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Cth) 1988: ss 4, 5A, 5B, 14, 16, 19
Re Rana and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (2008) 104 ALD 595
Telstra Corporation v Hannaford (2006) FCR 253
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch [1964] 110 CLR 626
Commonwealth v Beattie (1981) 35 ALR 361; (1981) 53 FLR 191
Australian Postal Corporation v Bessey (2001) 32 AAR 508
Tippett v Australian Postal Corporation (1998) 27 AAR 40
Coles v Australian Postal Commission (2001) AATA 997
Coles v Australian Postal Commission (2003) AATA 1157
REASONS FOR DECISION

4 February 2011 The Hon. Brian Tamberlin QC, Deputy President, Mr Dean Letcher QC, Senior Member and Dr M E C Thorpe, Member.

1. Mr Coles applies for review of a Decision dated 23 August 2007 which held that after 25 July 2007 he was not entitled to receive compensation for aggravation of a pre-existing lower back condition. Earlier Tribunal hearings concerned other aspects but in this hearing the question was whether an incident at work on 22 December 1998 continued to be an aggravation of his back condition after 25 July 2007 and if so for what period.
2. Liability pursuant to s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Cth) (the 1988 Act) was accepted in a determination in respect of a back injury sustained 22 December 1998. The accepted injury was "an aggravation of pre-existing degenerative changes in cervical and lumbar spine".
3. The major question was for how long that aggravation lasted…

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.

Continue reading Coles and Australian Postal Corporation

Details

AGLC: Coles and Australian Postal Corporation [2011] AATA 62
Case: [2011] AATA 62
Decision Date: 4 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Coles and Australian Postal Corporation, the dispute before the Court involved a claim for workers' compensation, specifically addressing whether the applicant's pre-existing back condition had been aggravated by their employment activities. The matter was brought before the Court to review a decision made by the Tribunal, which had denied the applicant's claim. The Court was tasked with determining whether the aggravation of the applicant's back condition had ceased, and if not, whether the applicant had a continuing entitlement to compensation.

The primary legal issues that the Court needed to resolve included the interpretation of the term "aggravation" in the context of a pre-existing condition and the ongoing nature of the entitlement to compensation. The Court had to consider whether a pathological change was necessary to constitute an aggravation of a pre-existing condition, and if the applicant's condition had indeed ceased to be aggravated. Additionally, the Court addressed the applicant's submissions on issue estoppel and res judicata, determining whether these legal principles precluded the applicant from pursuing their claim.

The Court found that the aggravation of the applicant's back condition had not ceased, and that a pathological change was not necessary to constitute an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The Court rejected the submissions regarding issue estoppel and res judicata, concluding that the applicant had a present and continuing entitlement to compensation. The Court determined that the Tribunal's decision was in error and set it aside, substituting a decision that the respondent was liable to pay compensation to the applicant from 25 July 2007 to date and continuing, in accordance with sections 16 and 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The final orders of the Court mandated that the decision under review be set aside and replaced with a decision that the respondent is liable to pay compensation to the applicant from 25 July 2007 to date and continuing, as stipulated by the relevant sections of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. This ruling ensures that the applicant's entitlement to compensation is recognised and upheld, reflecting the Court's determination that the aggravation of their pre-existing condition had not ceased.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review is set aside and in its place the Tribunal substitutes a decision that the Respondent is liable to pay compensation to the Applicant pursuant to sections 16 and 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 from 25 July 2007 to date and continuing.

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.