Downs and Maersk Supply Service (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by the Respondent, Maersk Supply Service, to dismiss an application for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Applicant, Mr. Downs, had lodged a claim for compensation under the *Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992* (Cth) (Seafarers Act). The Respondent's insurer had initially deemed the claim disputed on 12 August 2020. Subsequently, the Respondent, by letter dated 8 February 2021, advised that it had reconsidered this deemed declinature and affirmed its decision to decline liability. The Applicant then lodged an application with the AAT seeking review of this affirmed decision.

The central legal issue before Deputy President Boyle was whether the AAT had jurisdiction to review the Respondent's decision. The Respondent argued that the Applicant's request for reconsideration was out of time, meaning there was no "reviewable decision" as defined by the Seafarers Act, and therefore the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. This argument relied on the Respondent's assertion that a request for reconsideration was due by 12 September 2020, a deadline the Applicant had missed.

Deputy President Boyle found that the Respondent's application for dismissal was not clearly articulated. However, the Respondent's primary submission was that the Applicant's request for reconsideration, made on 10 December 2020, was lodged after the expiry of the 30-day period stipulated by section 76(3)(c) of the Seafarers Act, rendering the subsequent decision unreviewable. The Respondent relied on previous AAT decisions to support the proposition that if no valid reconsideration request is made, there is no reviewable decision. Crucially, the Respondent conceded that it had reconsidered the deemed declinature and affirmed its position by its letter of 8 February 2021. This act of reconsideration and affirmation by the Respondent created a decision that was reviewable by the Tribunal.

Consequently, Deputy President Boyle dismissed the Respondent's application to dismiss the AAT review. The Respondent's concession that it had reconsidered the deemed declinature and affirmed its decision meant that there was a reviewable decision before the Tribunal, and therefore the Tribunal retained jurisdiction to hear the Applicant's application for review.