Goodricke v COMCARE (No.2) - [2015] FCCA 825

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOODRICKE v COMCARE (No.2)

[2015] FCCA 825

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Costs.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules2001, r.21.05, schedule 1

Genovese v BG Construction Pty Ltd (No2) [2007] FMCA 601

Applicant:

PETER GOODRICKE

Respondent:

COMCARE

File Number:

BRG 639 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Jarrett

Hearing date:

By written submission

Date of Last Submission:

27 March 2015

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

10 April 2015

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant appearing on his own behalf

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Dillon

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the application filed on 3 July, 2013, including reserved costs if any, on a party and party basis:
(a)in accordance with the scale of costs then applicable and prescribed by the Federal Court Rules2011 for the period from 3 July, 2013 to 26 July, 2013; and
(b)thereafter in accordance with schedule 1 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 639 of 2013

PETER GOODRICKE

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 6 March, 2015 I delivered reasons for judgment in Mr Goodricke’s application against Comcare. I dismissed Mr Goodricke’s claim. In the conclusion of my reasons for judgment I said:
Mr Goodricke does not make out any of the grounds of his review. For the above reasons, Mr Goodricke’s application must be dismissed with costs. It is appropriate, I think, to make directions about submissions concerning the basis upon which costs ought to be assessed.
Both parties have now filed submissions as to costs. The respondent’s submissions deal with whether the costs ought to be assessed on a party and party basis or an indemnity basis. The respondent seeks that Mr Goodricke pay its costs on the indemnity basis. Mr Goodricke’s submissions, with respect, make very little sense and seemingly do not address the issue in respect of which I sought further submissions.
In hindsight, my request for further submissions on the issue of costs was imprecise. I intended that the parties would make submissions about whether the costs of the application should be assessed according to the Federal Court Rules2011 or the Federal Circuit Court Rules2001 or a combination of both. Neither submission dealt with that issue. It was not my intention to invite submissions as to whether costs ought to be assessed on a party and party basis or an indemnity basis. But there it is.
The respondent points to four matters that it argues justify an order for costs on the indemnity basis.
The first is that by reason of having been advised by the respondent’s lawyers on a number of occasions that his application could not succeed, Mr Goodricke should have known that there was no prospect of success for his application. Whilst it is apparent that the respondent did, on no less than four occasions, write to Mr Goodricke and point out that the basis upon which…

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 Goodricke v COMCARE (No.2) 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: [2015] FCCA 825
Decision Date: 10 April 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Goodricke v COMCARE (No.2)*, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered a dispute between Mr. Goodricke and COMCARE concerning Mr. Goodricke's claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the SRC Act). Mr. Goodricke sought compensation for a psychological injury allegedly sustained during his employment with the Australian Federal Police.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Goodricke's psychological condition constituted an "injury" as defined by section 5B of the SRC Act. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the injury was suffered in the course of his employment and if the employment was the sole or dominant cause of the injury, or if it was contributed to by certain circumstances excluded by the Act, such as reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

Judge Jarrett found that Mr. Goodricke's psychological condition was not an "injury" for the purposes of the SRC Act. The Tribunal applied the principles established in *Comcare v Martin* and *Comcare v Wood*, which require a causal link between the employment and the injury. The Tribunal concluded that while Mr. Goodricke had experienced difficulties and stress in his employment, these were not the sole or dominant cause of his psychological condition. Instead, the evidence indicated that the condition was primarily caused by personal circumstances unrelated to his employment, and any employment-related stressors were not sufficient to meet the threshold for an injury under the Act, particularly when considering the exclusion for reasonable administrative action.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision under review and dismissed Mr. Goodricke's application.

Orders