Copeland and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by the Applicant for an extension of time to lodge an application for review of a determination made by the Respondent, the Australian Postal Corporation. The Applicant, a former employee of the Respondent, had lodged a claim for noise-induced hearing loss. The Respondent denied liability, and this decision was affirmed upon reconsideration. The Applicant sought to extend the time to lodge a further application for review of this second determination, which was lodged significantly out of time.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant an extension of time pursuant to s 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). This required the Tribunal to consider whether there was an acceptable explanation for the delay and whether it was fair and equitable in the circumstances to grant the extension. The Tribunal also considered the merit of the substantive application, although this was not articulated by the Applicant.

The Tribunal noted that the Applicant's legal representative provided an inadequate explanation for the substantial delay. The representative attributed the delay to an un-set Outlook reminder and an inability to reach the Applicant by telephone for several weeks, without providing specific details of these attempts. The Tribunal applied the principles relating to the presumption of receipt of electronic communications under s 161 of the Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), finding no evidence to rebut the presumption that the Respondent's email of 19 April 2022, which affirmed the determination, was received. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the Applicant had not articulated any demonstrated merit in his claim that would warrant granting the extension.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there were no sufficient grounds demonstrated for granting an extension of time. The application for an extension of time was refused.