Comcare v Singh

Case [2012] FCA 136

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Comcare v Singh [2012] FCA 136

Citation: Comcare v Singh [2012] FCA 136
Appeal from: Singh and Comcare [2011] AATA 533
Parties: COMCARE v SAMUEL SINGH
File number(s): NSD 1424 of 2011
Judge: JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 24 February 2012
Catchwords: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether a question of law arises – whether inadequacy of reasons a question of law – adequacy of reasons considered – appeal allowed
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Postal Corporation v Forgie (2003) 130 FCR 279; [2003] FCAFC 223
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (2009) 253 ALR 263; [2009] FCA 49
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Limited (2009) 179 FCR 554; [2009] FCAFC 137
Comcare Australia v Lees (1997) 151 ALR 647; [1997] FCA 1415
Dornan v Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564
Pascoe v Australian Postal Corporation (2004) 77 ALD 464; [2004] FCAFC 4
Singh and Comcare [2011] AATA 533
Telstra Corp Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2003) 37 AAR 40; [2003] FCA 102
Date of hearing: 24 February 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 28
Counsel for the Applicant: Miss RM Henderson
Solicitor for the Applicant: Sparke Helmore
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr LT Grey
Solicitor for the Respondent: Carroll & O'Dea

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1424 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

COMCARE
Applicant
AND:

SAMUEL SINGH
Respondent

JUDGE:

JAGOT J

DATE OF ORDER:

24 FEBRUARY 2012

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be allowed.

2.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in application 2010/3084 be set aside.

3.Application 2010/3084 be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for determination in accordance with law.

4.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this appeal, as agreed or taxed.

5.Pursuant to s 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1982 (Cth), a costs certificate be granted stating that, in the opinion of the Federal Court of Australia, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent in respect of:

(a)the costs incurred by the respondent in relation to the appeal, and

(b)any costs payable to the applicant, Comcare, as a result of Order 4.     

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 1424 of 2011
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:

COMCARE
Applicant
AND:

SAMUEL SINGH
Respondent

JUDGE:

JAGOT J

DATE:

24 FEBRUARY 2012

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant, Comcare, appeals from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) in which, relevantly, the AAT set aside Comcare’s decision under s 37(7) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the

Continue reading Comcare v Singh

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Comcare v Singh [2012] FCA 136
Case
[2012] FCA 136
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Comcare against Mr Singh, and concerned the review of decisions relating to the suspension of Mr Singh’s rights to compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The dispute originated from two separate applications for review submitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), seeking to overturn decisions made by Comcare that had affirmed prior determinations directing Mr Singh to participate in a rehabilitation program, and decisions that suspended his rights to compensation for his failure to participate in the program. The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was a question of law that arose from the AAT’s decision and whether the inadequacy of reasons provided by the AAT constituted a question of law. The court was also required to consider whether the reasons provided by the AAT were adequate.

In determining the appeal, the court first assessed whether the AAT had erred in law by considering matters outside the scope of the statutory powers granted to it, or by failing to consider relevant matters. The court also examined whether the AAT had made an error in the application of the relevant statutory provisions. Furthermore, the court evaluated the adequacy of the reasons provided by the AAT in its decision, determining whether the reasons were sufficient to enable effective scrutiny of the AAT’s decision-making process. Upon review, the court found that the AAT had erred in law by failing to properly consider the evidence presented by Mr Singh regarding his reasonable excuse for not participating in the rehabilitation program. The court concluded that the AAT’s reasons were inadequate as they did not sufficiently address the evidence and arguments presented by Mr Singh. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the AAT in application 2010/3084 was set aside and remitted for further consideration in accordance with the law.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be allowed.

2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in application 2010/3084 be set aside.

3. Application 2010/3084 be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for determination in accordance with law.

4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this appeal, as agreed or taxed.

5. Pursuant to s 6(1) of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1982 (Cth), a costs certificate be granted stating that, in the opinion of the Federal Court of Australia, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under that Act to the respondent in respect of:

(a) the costs incurred by the respondent in relation to the appeal, and

(b) any costs payable to the applicant, Comcare, as a result of Order 4.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

To understand these questions it is necessary to consider the AAT’s decision.THE AAT’S DECISION At [1] of its reasons the AAT explained:Before the Tribunal were two applications for review, namely:Application 2010/1016 seeking review of a “reviewable decision” of 17 February 2010, which affirmed a prior determination of 2 October 2009 directing the Applicant to participate in a rehabilitation program commencing 7 October 2009; andApplication 2010/3084 seeking review of a “reviewable decision” of 9 July 2010 which affirmed determinations dated 1 and 9 April 2010. The determination of 1 April 2010 ruled that the Applicant had refused or failed to undertake a rehabilitation program, and that the Applicant’s rights to compensation were suspended pursuant to subsection 37(7) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“SRC Act”). The determination of 9 April 2010 denied payments of compensation to the Applicant, pursuant to s 19 SRC Act for the period 19 October 2009 to 19 February 2010. The AAT identified the relevant provisions of the Compensation Act at [2], including the following parts of s 37:(1)A rehabilitation authority may make a determination that an employee who has suffered an injury resulting in an incapacity for work or an impairment should undertake a rehabilitation program.…(7)Where an employee refuses or fails, without reasonable excuse, to undertake a rehabilitation program provided for the employee under this section, the employee’s rights to compensation under this Act, and to institute or continue any proceedings under this Act in relation to compensation, are suspended until the employee begins to undertake the program. The AAT correctly identified the issues to be determined in these terms (at [3]):(i)Was the rehabilitation program the Applicant was directed to undertake a suitable program to direct the Applicant to undertake; and(ii)If yes to (i) above, did the Applicant have a reasonable excuse for failing to continue to undertake the said rehabilitation program. The AAT dealt with the material before it, commencing at [4]. At [8] the AAT noted that:By determination dated 12 September 2007, the Respondent accepted the Applicant’s claim for compensation, the compensable injury being stated as “adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features”. After identifying other relevant facts concerning the efforts made to enable Mr Singh to return to work, the AAT (at [33]) recorded that:The Applicant’s evidence was that he attended for work during the second week, namely the week commencing 12 October 2009 and was distressed to find that Mr Nadazdy was not there to support him and he began to have negative thoughts regarding his position and felt stressed. He lost his appetite, would wake up at 2:00am and could not go back to sleep. He saw Dr Stanley on 19 October 2009 who provided the Applicant with a certificate stating he was totally incapacitated for work. The Applicant has continued to receive certificates from Dr Stanley certifying his incapacity for work.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.