Legal Research
Cases
Comcare Australia v Lees

Comcare Australia v Lees

Case [1997] FCA 1415 10 December 1997

Judicial Review

Reasons for Decision

Failure to Take Relevant Evidence into Account

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - judicial review - Administrative Appeals Tribunal - no evidence - failure to take relevant evidence into account - reconsideration before a final decision is made - failure to state reasons - extent of reasons required

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988(Cth) ss 14(1), 24, 124

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 43

Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500 mentioned

Apps v Pilet (1987) 11 NSWLR 350 mentioned

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 mentioned

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 considered

Bisley Investments Corporation Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1982) 59 FLR 132 mentioned

Body Corporate Strata Plan No 4166 & Ors v Stirling Properties Ltd (No 2) [1984] VR 903 discussed
Broussard v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 98 ALR 180 mentioned

Collins v Repatriation Commission (1980) 32 ALR 581 4-5 considered

Commonwealth of Australia v Pharmacy Guild of Australia (1989) 91 ALR 65 mentioned

Commonwealth v Borg (1994) 20 AAR 299 applied

Dornan v Riordan (1990) 95 ALR 451 discussed

Re Poyserand Mills’ Arbitration [1964] 2 QB 467 discussed

Kiama Constructions Pty Ltd v Davey (1996) 40 NSWLR 639 mentioned

Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725 mentioned

Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1985-1985) 162 CLR 24 mentioned

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 mentioned

Mountview Court Properties Ltd v Devlin & Ors (1970) 21 P&CR 689 discussed

Muralidharan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) 136 ALR 84 mentioned

O’Brien v Repatriation Commission (1984) 1 FCR 472 considered

Our Town FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (No 1) (1987) 77 ALR 577 mentioned

Pettitt v Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376 discussed

Powley v Crimes Compensation Tribunal (unreported, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court of Victoria, 16 December 1996 per Ormiston J) mentioned

Repatriation Commission v O’Brien (1985) 155 CLR 422 discussed

Roads Corporation v Dacakis [1995] 2 VR 508 disapproved in part

Soulemezis v Dudley Holdings Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 mentioned

Telescourt v Commonwealth (1991) 29 FCR 227 mentioned

Wattle Glen Estates Pty Ltd v MMBW (1974) 40 LGRA 104 mentioned

Yates Property Corporation Pty Ltd (in liq) v Darling Harbour Authority (1991) 24 NSWLR 156 mentioned

COMCARE AUSTRALIA v VICTOR JOHN LEES
VG 530 of 1996

FINKELSTEIN J
MELBOURNE
10 DECEMBER 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 530 of 1996

On appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal

BETWEEN: COMCARE AUSTRALIA
Applicant

AND: VICTOR JOHN LEES
Respondent

and

BETWEEN: VICTOR JOHN LEES
Cross-applicant

AND: COMCARE AUSTRALIA
Cross-respondent

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

10 DECEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal is dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.
The cross-appeal is dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders are dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE…

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 Comcare Australia v Lees

Details

AGLC: Comcare Australia v Lees [1997] FCA 1415
Case: [1997] FCA 1415
Decision Date: 10 DECEMBER 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Comcare Australia sought to appeal a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that had set aside a decision of a delegate of the respondent to reject a claim for compensation by Victor John Lees for a permanent impairment. The appeal was brought pursuant to s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and was confined to a question of law. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The cross-appeal brought by Mr Lees was also dismissed. The Tribunal had erred in finding that the applicant had failed to take into account evidence that had been led by Mr Lees. The Tribunal had not erred in failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision. The reasons provided by the Tribunal were sufficient to enable a person who was dissatisfied with the decision to determine whether there had been some reviewable error made by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had considered the evidence and provided its reasons for preferring the evidence of some witnesses over others. The Tribunal had also provided reasons for its decision to discount some of the evidence it had considered. The reasons were sufficient to allow an appellate court to determine whether the decision was open on the evidence.

Orders