Faulks and BIS Industries Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for compensation by Mr Faulks against BIS Industries Ltd before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The dispute centred on the determination of Mr Faulks' normal weekly earnings (NWE) for the purposes of his compensation claim. Earlier applications made by Mr Faulks concerning his NWE had been dismissed by the Tribunal in June 2017. BIS Industries argued that these earlier dismissals meant that Mr Faulks' NWE up to that date were definitively determined, and any subsequent variation could only be made through specific statutory processes.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Faulks could rely on material relating to his earnings pattern established before the dismissal of his earlier applications to support a later application for review of his NWE. BIS Industries contended that principles akin to res judicata and issue estoppel prevented Mr Faulks from raising these matters again, arguing that the earlier dismissals had affirmed the NWE determinations at that time. The Tribunal was required to consider the application of estoppel principles to administrative tribunals and the extent to which its own statutory powers could address concerns typically managed by such doctrines.

The Tribunal acknowledged the debate surrounding the applicability of estoppel doctrines to administrative decision-makers, noting that while it may not strictly apply, the Tribunal possesses broad powers under the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to manage its processes and prevent the relitigation of finally decided matters. However, the Tribunal also recognised that the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) provides for the continuing determination of entitlements, including reconsideration of determinations under section 62. This provision allows for redetermination where an injury worsens or a new condition arises, implying that the Tribunal may need to review matters previously considered. The Tribunal found that its jurisdiction extended to considering the earnings pattern established by Mr Faulks before the dismissal of his earlier applications, as the matter had not been finally determined on its merits in a way that would preclude such consideration.