Re: COMMISSION FOR THE SAFETY AND REHABILITATION OF COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES And: GREGORY CHARLES CHENHALL No. G175 of 1991 FED No. 535 Statute (1992) 37 FCR 75
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Cooper J.(1)
CATCHWORDS
Statute - Commonwealth Employees Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 - exception for "injury" arising out of "reasonable disciplinary action" - meaning of "disciplinary action" - wide or narrow interpretation - ordinary grammatical meaning in the context in which it appears - purposes of the Act - reasonable action lawfully taken against an employee in the nature of or to promote discipline - disciplinary action, not the steps anterior to the decision to take such action - action to determine whether or not disciplinary action will be taken against an employee not within definition - nature of action depends upon duties and rules in governing statute or common law - look to disciplinary Act - rules of conduct - circumstances where action of a disciplinary nature can be enforced - type of action - depends on the regulatory rules of the employee in question - misconduct need not be proven.
Commonwealth Employees Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 Section 4(1)
Commission for the Safety and Rehabilitation of Commonwealth Employees v. Gregory Charles Chenhall
HEARING
BRISBANE
#DATE 29:7:1992
Solicitors for the Applicant: J. Hewison of Australian Government
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D.P. O'Gorman
Solicitors for the Respondent: Mr M.J. Lewis of A.W. Bale and Son
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr G. Gibson QC and Ms E. Ford
ORDER
THE COURT ORDERS THAT :-
1. The application is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration in accordance with the Order of the Tribunal of 14 November, 1991.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
The applicant is the Commission for the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees ("Comcare"). The respondent is Gregory Charles Chenhall, a former member of the Australian Federal Police.
The respondent joined the Australian Federal Police in 1975 and retired on grounds of invalidity on 18 June,…
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
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Commission for the Safety & Rehabilitation of Commonwealth Employees v Chenhall, G.C. [1992] FCA 535 ((1992) 37 FCR 75)
Case
[1992] FCA 535
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Comcare sought review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that it was liable to pay compensation to Mr Chenhall, a Commonwealth employee, for an injury he sustained during an altercation with a fellow employee. The AAT had determined that Comcare was liable for the injury, which occurred when Mr Chenhall was struck by a colleague who had come to the aid of a third employee who Mr Chenhall had assaulted. The primary issue before the court was whether the injury arose out of "reasonable disciplinary action" within the meaning of the Commonwealth Employees Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), an exception to liability for compensation. The court was required to determine the scope of "disciplinary action" and whether the injury sustained by Mr Chenhall fell within that scope.
The court examined the statutory language and context to ascertain the meaning of "disciplinary action". It concluded that the term should be interpreted in its ordinary grammatical sense within the context of the Act. The court held that disciplinary action was reasonably taken against an employee in the nature of, or to promote, discipline, and that it did not include the steps taken prior to deciding whether to take such action. It was emphasised that the nature of the action depended on the duties and rules set out in the governing statute or common law. The court found that the injury sustained by Mr Chenhall did not arise out of disciplinary action but rather from an altercation that was not part of any disciplinary process. The court found that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the term "disciplinary action" and that the matter should be remitted to the AAT for further consideration.
The court dismissed Comcare's application for review and remitted the matter to the AAT for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court's decision clarified the scope of "disciplinary action" and provided guidance for the AAT in determining future cases involving similar issues. The court's order did not address the final outcome of the compensation claim but rather directed the AAT to reconsider the case in accordance with the court's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions.
Orders
Orders of the court
THE COURT ORDERS THAT :-
1. The application is dismissed and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for further consideration in accordance with the Order of the Tribunal of 14 November, 1991.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.