Legal Research
Cases
Comcare v Mooi

Comcare v Mooi

Case [1996] FCA 508 26 June 1996

Interpretation of Statutes

Statutory Interpretation

Administrative Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHWORDS

WORDS AND PHRASES - meaning of the terms “injury”, “disease” and “ailment” in ss 4 and 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) - whether work-related stress leading to a condition of reactive depression and resulting in incapacity for work but not amounting to a mental disease, illness or disorder, is an injury within the meaning of s 14(1) of the Act.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - where a definition section gives a particular meaning to a term in a statute - necessity to have regard to the ordinary connotations of the word defined and not merely the literal words of the definition.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) - s 44
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) - ss 4, 14(1)

Cases Considered

British Amusement Catering Trades Association v Westminster City Council [1988] 2 WLR 485
Claydon v Bradley [1987] 1 WLR 521
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Re Magavalis [1983] 1 Qd R 59
RAP v AEP [1982] 2 NSWLR 508
Thazin-Aye v Workcover Authority of NSW (Court of Appeal, unreported, 20 September 1995)
W v L [1974] 1 QB 711

COMCARE v PAUL MOOI
QG 75 OF 1995

DRUMMOND J
BRISBANE
26 JUNE 1996

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA         )  No. QG 75 of 1995
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY     )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

ON APPEAL FROM THE
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: COMCARE

Applicant

AND: PAUL MOOI

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDERS

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:  Drummond J
DATE OF ORDER:  26 June 1996
WHERE MADE:  Brisbane

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 3 May 1995 be set aside and the decision of the applicant’s Internal Review Officer of 6 July 1993, affirming the decision of the Department of Defence of 19 February 1993, be restored.
2. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings.

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

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA         )  No. QG 75 of 1995
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY     )
GENERAL DIVISION  )

ON APPEAL FROM THE
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: COMCARE

Applicant

AND: PAUL MOOI

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal under s 44 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) from a decision of the Tribunal which declared that the applicant was incapacitated for work in circumstances which entitled him to compensation for most of the period between 28 September 1992 and 5 April 1993. In his original compensation application, the respondent identified “work-related stress” as the reason for this incapacity.
The appellant’s substantial ground of challenge to the Tribunal’s decision was that it was an error of law for the Tribunal to hold that the respondent was entitled to compensation under s 14(1) the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) without finding that the condition said to have incapacitated him for work amounted to a physical or mental injury…

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 Mooi

Details

AGLC: Comcare v Mooi [1996] FCA 508
Case: [1996] FCA 508
Decision Date: 26 JUNE 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Comcare appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had found that Paul Mooi was entitled to compensation for incapacity for work caused by work-related stress. The Tribunal had found that Mooi had suffered a reactive depression as a result of work-related stress, which had impaired his capacity for work. Mooi’s claim for compensation was based on s 14(1) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), which makes the applicant liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in incapacity for work or impairment of that capacity. The term “injury” is defined in s 4 of the Act to include a disease suffered by an employee or a physical or mental injury or an aggravation of a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment. “Disease” is defined in s 4 to mean any ailment or aggravation of such an ailment suffered by an employee, being an ailment or an aggravation that was contributed to in a material degree by the employee’s employment. “Ailment” is defined in s 4 to mean any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition. The Tribunal had found that Mooi’s reactive depression constituted an “injury” within the meaning of s 14(1) of the Act. The Federal Court held that it was an error of law for the Tribunal to find that Mooi had suffered an “injury” within the meaning of s 14(1). The Tribunal had found that Mooi had not suffered any mental illness or mental disturbance or psychological disorder as a result of the work-related stress he had been subjected to. The Court held that in order to be entitled to compensation under s 14(1), Mooi had to show that he had suffered something that can be regarded as an injury or something that can be regarded as a disease. The Court held that the Tribunal’s decision was erroneous in law, and it set aside the decision of the Tribunal and restored the decision of the Internal Review Officer of 6 July 1993, which had affirmed the decision of the Department of Defence of 19 February 1993 that Mooi was not entitled to compensation.

Orders