Di Carlo-Casablanca and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation)

Case

[2019] AATA 4772

15 November 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Di Carlo-Casablanca and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation) [2019] AATA 4772 [2019] AATA 4772 15 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for compensation by Ms Di Carlo-Casablanca against the Australian Capital Territory, heard by Deputy President Gary Humphries of the relevant tribunal. The dispute centred on whether Ms Di Carlo-Casablanca was entitled to compensation for the aggravation of her anorexia nervosa, which she alleged was significantly contributed to by her employment as a teacher. A key issue was whether her claim was excluded by section 53 of the relevant Act, which requires written notice of an injury to be given as soon as possible.

The tribunal was required to determine two primary questions: first, whether Ms Di Carlo-Casablanca suffered an aggravation of her eating disorder that was significantly contributed to by her employment; and second, if so, whether her claim was excluded by section 53 of the Act. The evidence presented indicated that Ms Di Carlo-Casablanca had a history of anorexia nervosa, but it had been stable for many years before she commenced teaching. She described experiencing significant stress and difficult working conditions at Belconnen High School between 2006 and 2010, including confrontations with students and high staff turnover, which she claimed aggravated her condition.

The tribunal found that while there was evidence of a difficult teaching environment, the significant delay in providing notice of the injury was fatal to the claim. The tribunal concluded that Ms Di Carlo-Casablanca was aware from 2007 onwards that her employment was causing her to become unwell and that this was a recurrence of her eating disorder. Despite this awareness, she failed to provide written notice of the injury as soon as possible, and there were no other reasonable causes for this delay that would excuse compliance with section 53. Consequently, the tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision of 19 September 2015, finding that Ms Di Carlo-Casablanca’s otherwise compensable injury was excluded by operation of section 53.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Administrative Law

  • Employment Law

Legal Concepts

  • Statutory Construction

  • Causation

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Limitation Periods

  • Judicial Review

  • Standing