Re: THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA And: HANNA FORD No. NSW G257 of 1985 Commonwealth Employees' Compensation
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION Wilcox J.
CATCHWORDS
COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION - Determination by Commissioner relating to period of total incapacity - No determination concerning partial incapacity - Power of Administrative Appeals Tribunal to award compensation for partial incapacity.
Paragraph (a) of the decision of the Tribunal of 9 August 1985 be set aside.
The case be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the determination of the amount of compensation for partial incapacity to which the respondent is entitled.
Save as above, the appeal be dismissed.
The applicant, the Commonwealth of Australia, pay to the respondent, Hanna Ford, her costs of the appeal.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1
By this appeal the Commonwealth of Australia challenges what it calls the jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in a review of a determination made under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1974 dealing with total incapacity, to award compensation for partial incapacity. I think that the question is one of power rather than of jurisdiction but, however it may be described, the point is without merit.
Hanna Ford, the respondent to the appeal and the applicant before the Tribunal, was employed as a word processor operator in the Office of the Special Prosecutor, an institution within the administrative purview of the Department of the Attorney-General. She developed repetitive strain injury - variously described in the evidence as overuse syndrome, carpal tunnel syndrome and tenosynovitis - involving pain in the neck and some pain and loss of function in the hands and arms. At all times it has been conceded that the injury was caused by her employment.
Ms Ford first lost time from work during the period 13 - 18 October 1983. She returned to her employment, but on 24 October 1983 again left work. She received sickness benefits. On 26 October 1983 Ms Ford made a claim for compensation pursuant to the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act; the only formal claim which she ever made in connection with the injury. On 15 November 1983 Ms Ford's employment was terminated, the reason being her repetitive strain injury and consequent absence from duty. Notwithstanding…
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 Commonwealth v Ford
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Commonwealth of Australia v. Ford, H. [1986] FCA 104
Case
[1986] FCA 104
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Commonwealth of Australia brought an appeal against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) in relation to a claim for compensation by Hanna Ford. Ford, who was a Commonwealth employee, was initially deemed totally incapacitated for work due to an injury. The AAT determined the compensation for this total incapacity but did not address the issue of partial incapacity that arose after the period of total incapacity had ended. The central legal issue was whether the AAT had the authority to award compensation for partial incapacity without a specific determination in the Commissioner's decision.
The Court found that the AAT did indeed have the power to award compensation for periods of partial incapacity, even if the Commissioner's decision did not specifically address this period. The Court emphasised that the AAT's role is to make a fresh determination of the matter, and this includes considering all aspects of the claim, such as periods of partial incapacity. The Court concluded that the AAT's failure to determine the compensation for the period of partial incapacity was a jurisdictional error, warranting the setting aside of part of the Tribunal's decision.
The Court set aside the relevant part of the AAT's decision and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for the determination of the amount of compensation for partial incapacity. The Court dismissed the appeal in all other respects and ordered the Commonwealth to pay Ford's costs of the appeal. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensively addressing all aspects of a compensation claim within the AAT's jurisdiction.
Orders
Orders of the court
Paragraph (a) of the decision of the Tribunal of 9 August 1985 be set aside.
The case be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for the determination of the amount of compensation for partial incapacity to which the respondent is entitled.
Save as above, the appeal be dismissed.
The applicant, the Commonwealth of Australia, pay to the respondent, Hanna Ford, her costs of the appeal.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.