Ford v Comcare

[2018] FCAFC 127

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ford v Comcare [2018] FCAFC 127

Appeal from:

Ford and Comcare (Compensation) [2018] AATA 648

File number:

VID 430 of 2018

Judges:

MURPHY, MORTIMER AND LEE JJ

Date of judgment:

10 August 2018

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988

Cases cited:

Telstra Corporation Limited v Bowden [2012] FCA 576; (2012) 206 FCR 207

Date of hearing:

8 August 2018

Registry:

Victoria

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category:

No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

4

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr P Hanks QC and Mr M Carey

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Maurice Blackburn

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr T Howe QC and Mr J Harris

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Comcare

ORDERS

VID 430 of 2018

BETWEEN:

MATTHEW FORD

Applicant

AND:

COMCARE

Respondent

JUDGES:	MURPHY, MORTIMER AND LEE JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	8 AUGUST 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be allowed.

2.The Tribunal’s decision be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Tribunal to be determined according to law.

3.The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs of the appeal, other than any costs attributable to the preparation of the proposed amended notice of appeal.

Note:   Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

1. In this proceeding the applicant, Matthew Ford, appeals pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) affirming the refusal of the respondent, Comcare, to pay him workers’ compensation under s 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) for an injury he claimed arose out of or in the course of his employment with the Civil Aviation and Safety Authority (CASA). 

2. The parties now jointly propose orders allowing the appeal, remitting the decision to the Tribunal to be determined according to law, and requiring the respondent to pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal other than any costs attributable to the preparation of the proposed amended notice of appeal.  We are satisfied that such orders are appropriate and we provide the following short reasons.

3. It is uncontentious that the applicant suffered an injury affecting his right eye and surrounding facial bones on 22 March 2016 when he fell on the stairs in a building at 720 Bourke Street Melbourne. It is common ground between the parties that, before the Tribunal, the applicant contended that his injury arose “out of employment” and gave some prominence to the judgement in Telstra Corporation Limited v Bowden [2012] FCA 576; (2012) 206 FCR 207 per Murphy J. The applicant’s case before the Tribunal was generally consistent with what are sometimes described as “entry and exit” workers’ compensation cases; namely that the applicant had a duty to attend the place of his employment at 720 Bourke Street Melbourne, and in performing that duty he entered the…