Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 904
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No V02/1419
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re JOHN FOLEY Applicant
And
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr J Handley, Senior Member Date15 September 2003
PlaceMelbourne
Decision The decision under review is affirmed. (Sgd) J Handley
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Applicant suffered “nervous breakdown” in 1987; claim for compensation made in 2002; whether notice of injury made as soon as practicable; whether employer would suffer prejudice; whether failure to claim resulted from ignorance or mistake or other reasonable cause; decision affirmed.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s124(2)
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 s53(1)(a)(b), s54(1), s54(2)(a)(i)(ii), s54(6)
Corry and Others v Keperra Country Gold Club and Others (1986) 64 ALR 556
Pacific Manning Company Pty Ltd v Barton (2003) FCA 498
Comcare v Luck (1999) 29 AAR 403
Telstra Corporation v Roycroft (1997) 774 FCA
Banks v Comcare, Federal Court, 1954, 382/96
Re Scutts and Department of Defence (1998) AATA 527
Re Willis and Australian Telecommunications Commission (1989) 10 AAR 352
REASONS FOR DECISION
15 September 2003 Mr J Handley, Senior Member 1. The applicant applies to review a decision made by the respondent on 24 October 2002. The respondent then decided to affirm a decision it made on 1 August 2002 to reject a claim made on 25 July 2002.
2. The claim then made was in respect of a “nervous breakdown” which the applicant alleged occurred in 1987 when he was employed by the respondent (refer T-document page 21).
3. The “commencing day” of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 was 1 December 1988. Section 124(2) is recorded in the following terms:
(2)A person is not entitled to compensation under this Act in respect of an injury, loss or damage suffered before the commencing day if compensation was not payable in respect of that injury, loss or damage:
(a)where the injury, loss or damage was suffered before the commencement of the 1930 Act - under the 1912 Act;
(b)where the injury, loss or damage was suffered after the commencement of the 1930 Act but before the commencement of the 1971 Act - under the 1930 Act as in force when the injury, loss or damage was suffered; or
(c)in any other case - under the 1971 Act as in force when the injury, loss or damage was suffered.
4. By reason of the injury having occurred prior to 1 December 1988 and during the currency of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (“the 1971 Act”) the provisions of sub-section of (2)(c) above apply. Accordingly it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the 1971 Act namely, s53(1)(a)(b), s54(1), (2)(a)(i)(ii) and (6) which are relevantly reproduced as follows;
53.(1) This Act does not apply in relation to an injury caused to an employee unless notice in writing of the injury was served, as prescribed, on the Commonwealth-
(a)as…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Foley and 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
- [2003] AATA 904
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the statutory provisions and relevant case law to determine whether Foley's delay in claiming compensation constituted a reasonable cause. It considered the principles established in Corry and Others v Keperra Country Gold Club and Others, Pacific Manning Company Pty Ltd v Barton, Comcare v Luck, and Banks v Comcare, among others. The court found that the statutory requirement for notice of injury to be made as soon as practicable was not strictly adhered to by Foley. However, it also found that the delay was due to reasonable cause, as Foley had been unaware of the link between his nervous breakdown and his employment until 2002. The court concluded that the employer would not suffer significant prejudice if compensation was awarded, and that the delay did not bar Foley's claim.
Based on the findings, the court affirmed the decision under review. The court held that Foley's claim for compensation was not barred by the delay in making the claim, as the delay was due to reasonable cause. The court found that the applicant had made out a case for compensation under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971, and that the respondent would not suffer prejudice if compensation was awarded. The decision affirmed the original determination, allowing Foley to proceed with his claim for compensation.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed.
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.