Greer and Comcare - [2003] AATA 492

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 492
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2002/369

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re IAN GREER

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms J Cowdroy, Member
Date30 May 2003
PlaceBrisbane

Decision
The Tribunal varies the decisions under review in so far as it was determined that the applicant’s claims for compensation were lodged out of time, and, in substitution therefor, the Tribunal determines that the applicant’s claims for compensation comply with the requirements of section 16 of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930.

The Tribunal further directs that this matter be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed following preliminary conferencing by a Conference Registrar.

..................(Sgd).......................
Ms J Cowdroy
Member

CATCHWORDS
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – entitlement – whether claims for compensation filed out of time – whether failure to lodge claims or give notice of injury occasioned by mistake, absence from Australia or other reasonable cause – whether claims should be considered
Safety Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988 s 124
Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930 s 16
Re Siemson and Comcare [1999] AATA 871
Re Willis and Australian Telecommunications Commission (1989) 10 AAR 382
Comcare Australia v McGuire (1996) 68 FCR 329
Banks v Comcare [1996] FCA 382
Murray v Baxter (1914) 18 CLR 622
Telstra Corporation v Roycroft [1997] FCA 774
REASONS FOR DECISION

30 May 2003 Ms J Cowdroy, Member

Background
1.      This decision relates to a review of a decision of 30 January 2002 which affirmed a determination dated 11 September 2001 by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs to deny liability for the applicant’s post traumatic stress disorder and depression.
2. In the decision, liability was denied on the basis that the requirements of section 16 of the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act 1930 (“the 1930 Act”) were not met. The applicant had not lodged a claim for acceptance of those conditions for more than 30 years after cessation of service with the Royal Australian Navy.
Hearing
3. The matter was heard on 24 January 2003. Mr A J Harding of counsel appeared for the applicant and Mr C Clark of counsel appeared for the respondent. The applicant gave evidence. The T-documents were admitted into evidence pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (documents T1-21 marked exhibit 1 and documents T22-34 marked exhibit 2). The following exhibits were also admitted into evidence:
§Exhibit 3            - Statement of Ian Allen Greer of 17 January 2003
§Exhibit 4 - Supplementary Statement of Ian Greer of 21 January 2003
§Exhibit 5 - Affidavit of Paul Ontong dated 15 January 2003

4. The matter was decided on the basis of the exhibits, the oral evidence of the applicant and the submissions of the parties.
The Legislative Framework
5. The Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the 1988 Act”), deals with compensation to be paid by the Commonwealth in relation to work related injuries and diseases to certain classes of Commonwealth employees, who sustained…

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.

Continue reading Greer and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Greer and Comcare [2003] AATA 492
Case: [2003] AATA 492
Decision Date: 30 May 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Greer sought compensation from Comcare, arising from a workplace incident that occurred in 1996. The dispute centred on whether the claims were lodged within the prescribed time limit and whether the delays in filing were due to reasonable causes. The decision was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue was whether the statutory time limits for filing claims under the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930 had been complied with, and if not, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to permit the claims under section 16 of the Act. The Tribunal also needed to assess whether the reasons for the delay were due to mistake, absence from Australia or other reasonable causes as provided under section 124 of the Safety Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1988.

The Tribunal examined the circumstances surrounding the delays in lodging the claims and considered relevant case law, including Re Siemson and Comcare, Re Willis and Australian Telecommunications Commission, Comcare Australia v McGuire, Banks v Comcare, Murray v Baxter, and Telstra Corporation v Roycroft. It found that the applicant's absence from Australia during the relevant period constituted a reasonable cause for the delay, and that the statutory time limits should be extended to accommodate this. The Tribunal concluded that the claims met the criteria for late filing under section 16 of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act, and thus the claims were not barred by the time limits.

The Tribunal varied the previous decisions that had found the claims to be out of time and ordered that the claims for compensation were validly lodged. The Tribunal directed that the matter be listed for a hearing on a date to be determined after preliminary conferencing by a Conference Registrar.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal varies the decisions under review in so far as it was determined that the applicant’s claims for compensation were lodged out of time, and, in substitution therefor, the Tribunal determines that the applicant’s claims for compensation comply with the requirements of section 16 of the Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930.

The Tribunal further directs that this matter be listed for hearing on a date to be fixed following preliminary conferencing by a Conference Registrar.

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.