Deighton, Raymond John v Telstra Corporation Ltd - [1997] FCA 58

C A T C H W O R D S

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Administrative Appeals Tribunal - application for an extension of time in which to lodge an application for review of decision rejecting employee's compensation claim - previous application for review of that decision had been dismissed by consent - fresh application for review over four years out-of-time - discretion to refuse extension of time - Tribunal assessed medical evidence as indicating that Tribunal could not reasonably be satisfied that applicant's claim maintainable - whether Tribunal erred in law in failing to form its own opinion - whether Tribunal, although expressing correct test concerning causation, actually applied stricter test - whether denial of natural justice.

Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s.65(4)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s.29(7)

Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v. Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344
Wu Shan Liang v. Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1995) 130 ALR 367
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v. Wu Shan Liang (1996) 136 ALR 481
Adelaide Stevedoring Co Ltd v. Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538
Maric v. Comcare (1993) 40 FCR 244

RAYMOND JOHN DEIGHTON v. TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
No. WAG 79 of 1996

CARR J
PERTH
13 FEBRUARY 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT            )
OF AUSTRALIA  )
WESTERN AUSTRALIA                )
DISTRICT REGISTRY  )               No. WAG 79 of 1996
GENERAL DIVISION  )

On appeal from the General Administrative Division of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Associate
Professor S.D.Hotop, Senior Member

B E T W E E N : RAYMOND JOHN DEIGHTON

Applicant
and

TELSTRA CORPORATION

LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM:      CARR J.
PLACE:        PERTH
DATE:           13 FEBRUARY 1997

MINUTE OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT            )
OF AUSTRALIA  )
WESTERN AUSTRALIA                )
DISTRICT REGISTRY  )               No. WAG 79 of 1996
GENERAL DIVISION  )

On appeal from the General Administrative Division of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Associate
Professor S.D.Hotop, Senior Member

B E T W E E N : RAYMOND JOHN DEIGHTON

Applicant
and

TELSTRA CORPORATION

LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM:      CARR J.
PLACE:        PERTH
DATE:           13 FEBRUARY 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

In this application Mr Raymond John Deighton appeals from a decision, made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on 23 May 1996, to refuse an extension of time for lodging an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Australian Telecommunications Corporation, the predecessor of Telstra Corporation Ltd, the respondent. In these reasons I shall refer to each of those companies as "the respondent". The delegate's decision, made on 10 December 1990 ("the Review Decision") was to affirm a determination made on 11 September 1990 that the respondent was not liable under s.14 of the Commonwealth Employees Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Compensation Act") to pay compensation to Mr
Deighton. In essence, the question 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.

Continue reading Deighton, Raymond John v Telstra Corporation Ltd

Details

AGLC: Deighton, Raymond John v Telstra Corporation Ltd [1997] FCA 58
Case: [1997] FCA 58
Decision Date: 13 FEBRUARY 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Deighton, Raymond John v Telstra Corporation Ltd concerns an appeal against a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) refusing an extension of time for Mr Deighton to lodge an application for review of a decision rejecting his employee's compensation claim. The dispute involves Mr Deighton's claim for compensation due to exposure to Dieldrin and Creosote while working for Telstra Corporation Ltd, and whether the AAT erred in its decision to not extend the time limit for lodging the application for review. The legal issues in the case include whether the AAT was required to form its own opinion concerning the contribution of Mr Deighton's employment to his condition, whether the AAT applied a stricter test than required, and whether the Tribunal's reliance on the Deed of Settlement amounted to a denial of natural justice.

The Court found that the AAT was not obliged to form its own opinion about the contribution of Mr Deighton's employment to his condition and apply its own common sense in the absence of conclusive expert opinion. The AAT was entitled to rely on the medical reports in assessing the merits of the applicant's case. The Court also found that the AAT did not apply a stricter test than required and had correctly identified the test by reference to s.14 of the Compensation Act. Furthermore, the Court held that the Tribunal's reliance on the Deed of Settlement was not a denial of natural justice, as the Tribunal did not base its reasoning on the legal effectiveness of the Deed, but rather the payment and the expectation that the claim would not be pursued by Mr Deighton in the future.

In conclusion, the Court found no error of law on the part of the AAT and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Orders