Frame and Woodside Energy Ltd - [2005] AATA 997

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2005/181

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re JOHN FRAME

Applicant

And

WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD

Respondent

AMENDMENT TO DECISION [2005] AATA 997

Tribunal
Robin Hunt, Senior Member

Date 6 October 2006
PlaceSydney

Decision
The Tribunal amends its decision and reasons for decision published on 11 October 2005 in the manner appearing from the amended decision and supplementary reasons for decision delivered on 6 October 2006.

The Tribunal continues to find that it has jurisdiction to hear the application of John Frame.

[SGD]
Ms R Hunt
Senior Member

AMENDED DECISION

Tribunal
Robin Hunt, Senior Member

Date 6 October 2006
Place Sydney
Decision:The tribunal finds that the Cossack Pioneer is an off-shore industry mobile unit within the meaning of s 8(3) of the Navigation Act 1912 and hence a ship within the meaning of s 6 of that Act and a prescribed ship within s 3 of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992.

This finding does not alter the original decision reached on 11 October 2005 that the tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the application of John Frame.

[SGD]

Ms R Hunt
Senior Member

Is the tribunal functus officio?
4. On 11 October 2005 I delivered my decision in this matter on the claim formulated by the respondent and addressed in reply by the applicant as to the jurisdiction of the tribunal to hear the applicant’s application for review. The respondent argued that the incident giving rise to the claim occurred outside the ambit of the Seafarers Act. The incident in question took place on board the Cossack Pioneer, a vessel converted for use in offshore operations of the respondent. The respondent contended that the Cossack Pioneer was no longer a ship and therefore not a prescribed ship for the purposes of the Seafarers Act.
5. Both parties subsequently sought leave to re-open the case before the tribunal about the undetermined issue of whether the Cossack Pioneer was an “off-shore industry mobile unit”. The term ”off-shore industry mobile unit” is defined in s 8(3) of the Navigation Act 1912. Further, an off-shore industry mobile unit comes within the definition of “ship” in s 6 of the Navigation Act 1912. The applicant contends that the Cossack Pioneer comes within the s 8(3) definition of off-shore industry mobile unit and is therefore a “ship” within the meaning of s 6 of the Navigation Act 1912 by virtue of this connection. Both parties asked the tribunal to make an amended decision to include consideration of this further issue and to provide supplementary reasons.
6. Authorities cited above concern the application of a privative clause, s 474 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Nevertheless, I have taken them into account in considering whether I have jurisdiction to deal with the previously unarticulated claim by the applicant that the Cossack Pioneer is an off-shore industry mobile unit. On the basis of the above authorities, and in accordance with the procedure…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Frame and Woodside Energy Ltd 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] AATA 997
Decision Date: 11 October 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Frame and Woodside Energy Ltd, the matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The dispute arose from a claim by John Frame, an employee of Woodside Energy Ltd, who sought compensation for injuries he sustained at work. Frame argued that his injuries occurred while he was obtaining fuel for his vessel, which he claimed was an offshore industry mobile unit. Woodside Energy Ltd contested this claim, contending that the vessel was not an offshore industry mobile unit and thus the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the matter. The AAT was required to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the claim and, if so, whether the vessel in question qualified as an offshore industry mobile unit.

The central legal issue before the AAT was whether it could consider the issue of whether Frame's vessel was an offshore industry mobile unit, given that this was not explicitly articulated during the initial hearing. Additionally, the AAT needed to decide if it had jurisdiction over the claim if the vessel was indeed an offshore industry mobile unit. The AAT needed to navigate the procedural complexities of whether it was functus officio (had it completed its function) with respect to this issue and whether it could amend its decision to address the matter.

The AAT found that it was not functus officio in relation to the issue of whether Frame's vessel was an offshore industry mobile unit. It reasoned that it had the authority to revisit this matter and make findings on it. The Tribunal concluded that the vessel qualified as an offshore industry mobile unit, thus establishing its jurisdiction over the claim. Consequently, the AAT amended its earlier decision to include these findings and reasons. The Tribunal's final orders mandated that the initial decision and reasons be amended to reflect the Tribunal's findings and supplementary reasons delivered on 6 October 2006, and it affirmed its jurisdiction over Frame's application.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal amends its decision and reasons for decision published on 11 October 2005 in the manner appearing from the amended decision and supplementary reasons for decision delivered on 6 October 2006.

The Tribunal continues to find that it has jurisdiction to hear the application of John Frame.

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.