Comcare v Chenhall - [1996] FCA 745

CATCHWORDS

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION - whether earnings from non-government employment deductible from compensation payments - meaning of "suitable employment"

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth): ss 19, 20 and 30

Superannuation Act 1976 (Cth): s 75(1)

Comcare v Gregory Charles Chenhall
No. QG 78 of 1996

Judge:    Heerey J
Date:     16 August 1996
Place:    Hobart (heard in Brisbane)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY     )        No. QG 78 of 1996
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

(On appeal from the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Mr K Beddoe, Senior Member)

B E T W E E N:

COMCARE
Applicant
- and -

GREGORY CHARLES CHENHALL
Respondent

JUDGE: Heerey J

DATE: 16 August 1996

PLACE: Hobart (heard in Brisbane)

MINUTES OF ORDER

The Court orders that:

The application is dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs including reserved costs.

NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY     )        No. QG 78 of 1996
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

(On appeal from the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Mr K Beddoe, Senior Member)

B E T W E E N:

COMCARE
Applicant
- and -

GREGORY CHARLES CHENHALL
Respondent

JUDGE: Heerey J

DATE: 16 August 1996

PLACE: Hobart (heard in Brisbane)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The point raised in this appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Mr K Beddoe, Senior Member, is whether in assessing compensation under s 20 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act), Comcare should have deducted certain earnings of the respondent Mr Chenhall from non- Commonwealth employment. The context in which this question arose was a proposed redemption of payments to Mr Chenhall under s 30 of the Act. If the view Comcare took was correct, its liability to make payments to Mr Chenhall was less than $50 per week and redemption under s 30 was mandatory.

The history of Mr Chenhall's compensation disputes with Comcare is long and complicated. However for present purposes the
relevant facts can be shortly stated and are not in dispute.

Mr Chenhall was born in 1947. He joined what was then known as the Commonwealth Police in 1975. By an instrument dated 14 June 1989 the Commissioner of Police retired Mr Chenhall from the Australian Federal Police with effect from 18 June 1989. The retirement was effected because Mr Chenhall was incapable of performing his duties in consequence of physical and mental incapacity.

Mr Chenhall was in receipt of superannuation. By an instrument dated 20 April 1993 a delegate of the Commissioner for Superannuation determined that, after receiving reports from a number of doctors, including two psychiatrists, she was not satisfied that the health of Mr Chenhall had become so restored as to enable him to perform his former duties or other suitable duties. This determination was made…

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 v Chenhall

Details

AGLC: Comcare v Chenhall [1996] FCA 745
Case: [1996] FCA 745
Decision Date: 16 AUGUST 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Comcare v Chenhall involved a dispute between Comcare, an entity providing compensation to Commonwealth employees, and Gregory Charles Chenhall, a former employee. Chenhall, who had been retired from the Australian Federal Police due to incapacity, sought compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The primary issue before the court was whether Comcare should deduct Chenhall's earnings from non-Commonwealth employment when assessing his compensation under Section 20 of the Act. The court also needed to interpret the term "suitable employment" as defined in Section 4(1) of the Act.

The court examined the legislative framework provided by Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, which detail the calculation of compensation for incapacitated Commonwealth employees. It also considered the definition of "suitable employment" and whether Chenhall's part-time security work qualified as such. The court noted that the Tribunal had found Chenhall was unable to secure employment by the Commonwealth due to his health conditions and the nature of his part-time work did not qualify as "suitable employment." Comcare argued that Chenhall's earnings from any employment should be deducted from his compensation. However, the court found that the purpose of Section 19 was to assess the amount Chenhall could earn in "suitable employment," not to deduct all earnings. The court concluded that Chenhall's inability to earn income in suitable employment meant his compensation should not be reduced by his casual earnings.

The court dismissed Comcare's appeal, holding that the Tribunal's interpretation of the Act was correct. It ruled that the term "suitable employment" was pivotal in determining Chenhall's compensation and that his casual work did not constitute such employment. The court ordered Comcare to pay Chenhall's costs, including reserved costs.

Orders