Comcare v Lofts

Comcare sought judicial review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in relation to a claim by Ms Lofts for compensation for medical expenses under s 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act). The claim was made in the context of a broader claim for compensation under s 14 of the SRC Act for an injury suffered by Ms Lofts in the course of her employment. The primary issue before the Court was whether the AAT had jurisdiction to determine the claim for compensation under s 16 of the SRC Act. The Court held that the AAT had acted beyond its jurisdiction in making an order in relation to the claim for compensation under s 16 of the SRC Act and set aside the AAT's decision.

The Court considered the scope of the reviewable decision and the relevant considerations that the AAT should have taken into account in determining the scope of its jurisdiction. The Court found that the AAT had erred in characterising the reviewable decision as one that included consideration of Comcare's liability for compensation by way of medical expenses under s 16 of the SRC Act. The Court held that the AAT was not authorised to consider and determine that issue as it was not part of the reviewable decision. The Court also found that the AAT had departed from the approach to the SRC Act set out by the High Court in Canute, which required decision-making about a liability to pay compensation to focus on the "injury" the employee is alleged to have suffered.

Ms Lofts submitted that the AAT had jurisdiction to award compensation for medical treatment under s 16 of the SRC Act because it stood in the shoes of the original decision-maker and could exercise such powers and discretions to the fullest extent permitted. The Court rejected this submission, holding that the question as to what was the subject matter of a claim was a jurisdictional, not a practical, problem. The Court held that the AAT must decide for itself whether the compensation sought by the employee was the subject matter with which the preceding decisions dealt, regardless of whether the earlier decision-makers dealt with it explicitly or even understood that matter was before them.

The Court set aside the AAT's decision and ordered Comcare to pay costs incurred by the first respondent and thrown away by reason of the initial proceeding issued under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). There was otherwise no order as to the costs of this proceeding.