Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2012] AATA 204
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2011/0543
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re SANDRA FOX Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr S. Webb, Member Date5 April 2012
PlaceCanberra
Decision The decision under review is set aside and in place thereof the Tribunal decides that Sandra Fox suffered an injury for which Comcare is liable to pay compensation.
The parties have not been heard in respect to orders for costs. Submissions on this point, if any, are to be filed within 14 days from this date. If no submissions are filed, Comcare will be ordered to pay Ms Fox’s reasonable costs in these proceedings as agreed or taxed.
.......................[sgd]...................
Mr S. Webb, Member
6. There are three essential elements to the exclusionary aspects of s 5A(1):
(a)the undertaking of administrative action in respect of the employee’s employment;
(b)the suffering of a disease, injury or aggravation as a result of the administrative action; and
(c)the reasonableness of the administrative action and the manner in which it was undertaken.
7. Considering the submissions of the parties, and without adopting an unduly disaggregated approach, it follows that the issues to be determined are:
(a)whether one or more of these factors is administrative action taken in respect of Ms Fox’s employment; and, if so
(b)whether Ms Fox’s claimed injury was suffered as a result of or was aggravated by one or more of those actions; and for this purpose
(c)the date of Ms Fox’s claimed injury.
8. Before considering these issues, it is necessary to set out the contextual background.
9. In 2008, Ms Fox was employed as an Executive Level 2 (EL2) section manager in the position of Director of the Review, Analysis and Economic Section (the Evaluation Section) in the Department of Education Science and Training (DEST). Following the merger of DEST with the Department, the Evaluation Section was merged with an existing Branch of the Department, managed by Paul Volker.
10. In 2009, the merged Department worked to implement new government policy to improve education outcomes in schools through “National Partnerships” with the States and Territories. Ms Fox was assigned duties, at the EL2 Director level, to lead the Smarter Schools National Partnerships evaluation and reporting team in the Inclusive Education Branch (presently, the Educational Accountability and Reporting Branch), managed by Ms Phillips. Precisely when this assignment was made is not clear on the present materials. Ms Fox says that it occurred prior to June 2009.
11. Responsibility for the Smarter Schools National Partnerships program was spread across three branches, one managed by Ms Phillips and another managed by Ms Hanlon, in the “Schools Cluster” of the Department, under one Group Manager. At the time Ms Fox transferred to her new role leading the Smarter Schools National Partnerships evaluation and reporting team, the Group Manager was Rebecca Cross. It appears that Ms Cross took up another appointment shortly thereafter and the position was not substantively filled until January 2010,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fox and Comcare 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
- [2012] AATA 204
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court needed to determine the interpretation and application of the phrase 'reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment' as it related to the circumstances leading to Sandra Fox's disease. The court examined whether the management and policy actions taken by her employer could be considered 'reasonable administrative actions' in respect of her employment. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the disease was a result of these actions or if it arose from other circumstances, such as the employee's perception of bullying based on actual events.
The court found that the management and policy actions were not reasonable administrative actions in respect of Sandra Fox's employment. It held that the disease was not a result of these actions but rather arose from the employee's perception of bullying based on actual events. Consequently, the disease was not excluded as an injury under the legislation. The decision of the AAT was set aside, and the Tribunal was directed to find that Sandra Fox suffered an injury for which Comcare is liable to pay compensation. The parties were instructed to file any submissions on costs within 14 days; otherwise, Comcare would be ordered to pay Ms Fox’s reasonable costs in these proceedings as agreed or taxed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is set aside and in place thereof the Tribunal decides that Sandra Fox suffered an injury for which Comcare is liable to pay compensation.
The parties have not been heard in respect to orders for costs. Submissions on this point, if any, are to be filed within 14 days from this date. If no submissions are filed, Comcare will be ordered to pay Ms Fox’s reasonable costs in these proceedings as agreed or taxed.
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.