FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Comcare v ZZRP [2019] FCA 952
ORDERS
NSD 1453 of 2018 BETWEEN: COMCARE
Applicant
AND: ZZRP
Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 JUNE 2019
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is allowed.
2.The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FLICK J:
The Respondent to the present proceeding, identified by the pseudonym ZZRP, commenced employment with the Australian…
Continue reading Comcare v ZZRP
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Comcare v ZZRP [2019] FCA 952
- Case
- [2019] FCA 952
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In Comcare v ZZRP, the dispute involved a claim for compensation related to an employee's mental health condition. The Federal Court was tasked with reviewing a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that had refused the compensation claim. The appellant, Comcare, sought to challenge the AAT's decision on the grounds that the Tribunal did not provide adequate reasons for its decision, as required by s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, in line with statutory requirements. Specifically, the court examined whether the AAT had adequately addressed the evidence concerning the applicant's mental health condition and its relation to workplace events. The court noted that while the AAT did not need to refer to all the evidence, it was essential to address the evidence that formed the basis of the decision. The court found that the AAT's reasons did not sufficiently address the key evidence and the submissions made by Comcare.
The court concluded that the AAT had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby breaching s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. This failure constituted a question of law under s 44(1) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the AAT for reconsideration in accordance with law. The court declined to order a different constitution of the AAT panel, leaving that decision to the Tribunal President.
The court's orders were to allow the appeal from the AAT's decision and to remit the matter back to the AAT for reconsideration. No order was made regarding costs, with each party to bear their own costs.
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the AAT had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, in line with statutory requirements. Specifically, the court examined whether the AAT had adequately addressed the evidence concerning the applicant's mental health condition and its relation to workplace events. The court noted that while the AAT did not need to refer to all the evidence, it was essential to address the evidence that formed the basis of the decision. The court found that the AAT's reasons did not sufficiently address the key evidence and the submissions made by Comcare.
The court concluded that the AAT had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, thereby breaching s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. This failure constituted a question of law under s 44(1) of the Act. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the AAT for reconsideration in accordance with law. The court declined to order a different constitution of the AAT panel, leaving that decision to the Tribunal President.
The court's orders were to allow the appeal from the AAT's decision and to remit the matter back to the AAT for reconsideration. No order was made regarding costs, with each party to bear their own costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is allowed.
2. The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.
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
The Consideration of the evidence warrants being set forth in full. Those paragraphs state as follows: CONSIDERATION OF THE EVIDENCE[48]The history reveals a rather consistent pattern of diagnosis by treating general practitioners of depression and anxiety, from May 2011 until the present time. As to the reliance by Comcare in 2014 upon Dr Burek’s report to the contrary, and his nomination of alcohol induced cognitive deterioration and paranoia, that report is largely unsupported in the reports of other specialists and is unsupported by the statutory declaration of the applicant’s father. I am inclined to reject that report.[49]I was impressed by Dr Howard’s evidence, which is also consistent with that of a number of other persons who treated the applicant. Dr Howard attributed the depression and anxiety mainly to the events in the workplace of 2011, and I conclude that those events caused the depression and anxiety, and still do so. The evidence of Mr Penman suggests that no such condition was evident prior to April 2011, and the diagnosis of depression and anxiety was confirmed in 2011 by Dr Allnutt. More recent evidence to the same effect appears from the results of psychometric tests administered by Mr Henrick, and Dr Moffatt observed mild depression and a degree of self-reported anxiety.[50]As to the possibility of paranoia, or paranoid ideation, the causes of the hospitalisations of 2011 and 2013 seem to have been preceded by psychotic episodes, albeit that on each occasion, relatively short term medication seems to have been successful in alleviating the condition on each occasion, and it seem not to have returned. Whether the psychotic episodes of late 2011 and of 2013 were themselves episodes for which the applicant was to some extent predisposed by his anxiety and depression, does not appear from the evidence before me.[51]I am not satisfied to find that the applicant has or had any bipolar condition on the evidence before me, despite some isolated references in the evidence to that diagnosis.[52]As I have said, I am not satisfied that alcohol use accounts for his current condition or for the stresses he experienced in the workplace, and the evidence of daily cannabis use self-reported on the telephone in 2010 to the Queenscliff Community Health Centre may possibly have been falsely reported, as he rather suggested. The applicant has not self-reported any such use since that time, although it was a matter about which he was regularly asked. Some instances of cannabis use appear from hospital notes at the Manly Hospital, but his current condition is not attributed to that circumstance by his current treating doctor and is not reported by others who have been in regular contact with him. It does not appear from the evidence to my satisfaction that any such cannabis use affects his current or any former condition. These reasons, with great respect to the Tribunal member, fail to comply with s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Although reservation has been expressed as to the manner in which the Tribunal has resolved (or failed to adequately resolve) the departure in the evidence of Dr Chow from that of Dr Howard, and failed to adequately deal with submissions advanced by Comcare, it is ultimately considered that the constitution of the Tribunal upon the matter being remitted to it should be left to be resolved by the Tribunal President. Expressly not made is any order that the Tribunal should be differently constituted. CONCLUSIONS Whether or not the Tribunal complies with the requirement to provide reasons as prescribed by s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act gives rise to a “question of law” for the purposes of s 44(1) of that Act: cf. Comcare v Singh [2012] FCA 136 at [22]. It has been concluded that the Tribunal has failed to provide reasons which comply with s 43(2B). It follows that on the facts of the present case that the appeal from the Tribunal’s decision must be allowed. The application made on behalf of Comcare that the matter should be remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted, however, is rejected. It should be left to the President of the Tribunal to determine how the Tribunal should be constituted when the matter again comes before it. Comcare did not seek any order as to costs other than that each party should pay its own costs. Accordingly, there is no order as to costs. THE ORDERS OF THE COURT ARE:1.The appeal from the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is allowed.2.The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.