FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Dean v Australian Postal Corporation [2010] FCA 680
Citation: Dean v Australian Postal Corporation [2010] FCA 680 Appeal from: Dean v Australian Postal Corporation [2009] AATA 812 Parties: BARRY DEAN v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION and ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL File number(s): NSD 1312 of 2009 Judges: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 30 June 2010 Catchwords: WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – Psychological disorder – Employee’s perception of bullying by manager – Whether ailment was “contributed to in a material degree by the employee’s ailment” – Perception does not have to founded on reasonable grounds – Evidence must support causative link of the perception as a material contributor to the development or aggravation of the ailment – s 4 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988-2007 (Cth) Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 43(2), 43(2B), 44
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988-2007 (Cth) s 4Cases cited: Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (2010) 265 ALR 424 cited
Appellant V324 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 259 cited
Australian Telecommunications Commission v Tzikas (1985) 5 AAR 173 considered
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (2009) 253 ALR 263 cited
Comcare v Lees (1997) 151 ALR 647 cited
Dornan v Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564 cited
Gilkinson v Repatriation Commission (2008) 104 ALD 406 cited
Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth of Australia (1985) 9 FCR 36 considered
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323 applied
Repatriation Commission v Cotton (2006) 93 ALD 118 cited
Wiegand v Comcare (2002) 72 ALD 795 appliedDate of hearing: 7 June 2010 Date of last submissions: 7 June 2010 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 47 Counsel for the Appellant: Mr D Richards Solicitor for the Appellant: Slater & Gordon Lawyers Counsel for the First Respondent: Mr P S Jones Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1312 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: BARRY DEAN
Appellant
AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
First RespondentADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER:
30 JUNE 2010
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court’s website.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
NSD 1312 of 2009
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: BARRY DEAN
Appellant
AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
First RespondentADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
PERRAM J
DATE:
30 JUNE 2010
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
I - Introduction
This case is concerned with events which took place during 2005 to 2006 at the Peakhurst delivery centre (“the Centre”) which is conducted by the respondent (“Australia Post”). The applicant,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dean v Australian Postal Corporation 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] FCA 680
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory provisions under s 4 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988-2007 (Cth), which requires a causal link between the employment and the psychological disorder. The court held that Mr Dean's perception of being bullied, even if not reasonable, could still be a material contributor to his ailment if the evidence supported such a link. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that Mr Dean’s perception of bullying materially contributed to his psychological disorder. The reasoning hinged on the fact that the employee's perception, even if unfounded, could have a significant impact on their mental health if it was a material factor in the development or aggravation of the ailment.
The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the AAT's decision, finding that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr Dean's perception of being bullied was a material contributor to his psychological disorder. The court further ruled that the perception did not need to be founded on reasonable grounds to be considered material. The appeal was dismissed with costs, meaning the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's legal expenses.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.
Note:
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.