Crowe v Comcare AUSTRALIA (No.1) - [2002] FMCA 146

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CROWE v COMCARE AUSTRALIA (No.1)

[2002] FMCA 146

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial review – election by injured employee to sue or accept workers’ compensation – whether any reviewable decision made by respondent.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), ss. 3, 8,
Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth), ss.16, 18

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss. 24, 25, 27, 44, 45, 57

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 17 CLR 321; 94 ALR 11
Buck v Comcare (1996) 41 ALD 281; 137 ALR 335
Cunningham v Repatriation Commission (1996) 44 ALD 379
Janssen v Commonwealth [1994] 1 QdR 596
Walsh v Commonwealth [1998] NSWSC 223

Applicant:

DEAN WILLIAM CROWE

Respondent:

COMCARE AUSTRALIA

File No:

CZ14 of 2002

Delivered on:

18 July 2002

Delivered at:

Canberra

Hearing Date:

18 July 2002

Judgment of:

Driver FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr D A Hassall

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Ken Cush & Associates

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr G M Watson

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Phillips Fox Lawyers

ORDERS

The respondent’s objection to the competency of the application is disallowed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
CANBERRA

CZ14 of 2002

DEAN WILLIAM CROWE

Applicant

And

COMCARE AUSTRALIA

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I have before me for ex tempore judgment an application by Dean William Crowe seeking to review a decision, so-called, of Comcare in relation to his application for Commonwealth employees’ compensation. The applicant seeks declarations, the effect of which would be to avoid the consequences of an election he purportedly made under s.45 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the SRC Act”). A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent, Comcare, whether any “decision” for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (“the AD(JR) Act”) had been made. The consequence of the raising of that point is that I must consider whether there is a relevant decision for the purposes of the application for review. Plainly, if there is no such decision, the application is incompetent. The jurisdiction of the Court arising from s. 8 of the AD(JR) Act is initially limited for the purpose of determining that preliminary issue.
A further necessary consequence of such a finding would be that the applicant would not be entitled to any declaration of right under s. 16 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 (Cth) and neither would the applicant be entitled to invoke any associated jurisdiction of the Court under s.18 of that Act, nor any accrued jurisdiction under the general law.
I do not need to deal with the background facts in this matter at any length, but briefly, the applicant had made an application for compensation under the SRC Act, which had been determined by Comcare on the basis that no compensation was payable. The applicant then submitted a further application for compensation in respect of the same injury, apparently on the basis of additional medical evidence. On receipt of that application, Comcare sent to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Crowe v Comcare AUSTRALIA (No.1) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] FMCA 146
Decision Date: 18 July 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Crowe, the applicant, and Comcare, the respondent. The applicant was contesting a decision made by the respondent regarding his eligibility for certain benefits under the Commonwealth's Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. This case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant sought judicial review of the decision, arguing that the respondent had erred in law and failed to properly consider relevant evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the respondent had acted lawfully and rationally in denying the applicant's claim for benefits. The court was required to examine whether the decision-maker had considered all relevant factors, and whether the decision was based on proper legal principles. The court also had to determine if there were any jurisdictional errors or errors of law in the decision-making process.

In considering the matter, the court reviewed the decision-making process and the evidence presented to the respondent. The court found that the respondent had properly considered the evidence and had not made any jurisdictional errors. The court held that the decision was rational and based on proper legal principles. The court also found that the applicant had not demonstrated any errors of law or irrationality in the decision. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for judicial review and disallowed the respondent's objection to the competency of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondent’s objection to the competency of the application is disallowed.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.