Griffiths v Australian Postal Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 26 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Griffiths v Australian Postal Corporation [2018] FCA 520

Appeal from: Griffiths and Australian Postal Corporation [2017] AATA 1025

File number:

NSD 1284 of 2017

Judge:

FLICK J

Date of judgment:

17 April 2018

Catchwords:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – appeal from decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether the Tribunal failed to set out findings on material questions of fact or failed to refer to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based – whether the Tribunal identified the “disease” which attracted the entitlement to compensation and “that disease” in respect to which the representation was made – whether the tribunal identified that basis upon which it concluded that the representation was “wilful and false”  

Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth) s 43(2B)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 5A, 5B, 7, 14

Cases cited:

Apache Northwest Pty Ltd v Department of Mines and Petroleum (WA) [2012] WASCA 167

Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47, (2006) 226 CLR 535

Comcare Australia v Porter (1996) 70 FCR 139

Comcare v Simmons [2014] FCAFC 4, (2014) 220 FCR 102

Dodds v Comcare Australia (1993) 31 ALD 690

Griffiths and Australian Postal Corporation [2017] AATA 1025

Inglewood Olive Processors Ltd v Chief Executive Officer of Customs [2005] FCAFC 101

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v MZYTS [2013] FCAFC 114, (2013) 230 FCR 431

Mulligan v National Disability Insurance Agency [2015] FCA 544, (2015) 233 FCR 201

National Australia Bank Ltd v Georgoulas [2013] FCA 1412, (2013) 217 FCR 382

Sagigi v Comcare [2009] FCA 385

Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Comcare [2008] FCA 52

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hannaford [2006] FCAFC 87, (2006) 151 FCR 253

Date of hearing:

6 February 2018

Registry:

New South Wales

Division:

General Division

National Practice Area:

Employment & Industrial Relations

Category:

Catchwords

Number of paragraphs:

48

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr L Grey with Mr J Mrsic

Solicitor for the Applicant:

CommComp Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr G Johnson SC with Mr P S Jones

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Graham Jones Lawyers

ORDERS

NSD 1284 of 2017
BETWEEN:

ROSLYN GRIFFITHS

Applicant
AND:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

JUDGE:

FLICK J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 APRIL 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal is allowed.

2.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is set aside.

3.The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.

4.The Respondent is to pay the costs of the Applicant.

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


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. On 4 July 2017 the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) affirmed two decisions refusing claims for compensation made by the Applicant, Ms Roslyn Griffiths:  Griffiths and Australian Postal Corporation [2017] AATA 1025. One claim was made in August 2014; the second claim was made in August 2015.

  2. Those claims were made pursuant…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Griffiths v Australian Postal Corporation 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
[2018] FCA 520
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Griffiths v Australian Postal Corporation, the Federal Court of Australia heard an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The central issue was whether the AAT had correctly identified the disease that attracted entitlement to compensation and whether it had properly determined that a representation made by Ms Griffiths was "wilful and false". Ms Griffiths had claimed workers' compensation for a disease she had previously represented as a different condition. The appeal questioned the AAT's compliance with statutory requirements for providing reasons and whether it had sufficiently identified the specific disease in question.

The court identified two main legal issues. Firstly, it had to determine whether the AAT correctly interpreted the phrase "that disease" in section 7(7) of the relevant Act, which required a match between the disease claimed and the one subject to the false representation. Secondly, the court had to assess whether the AAT's reasons complied with the statutory requirement to provide adequate reasons for its decisions. Specifically, it needed to determine if the AAT had adequately identified the disease and the basis for finding the representation "wilful and false".

The court found that the AAT had not sufficiently identified the specific disease that attracted entitlement to compensation and had failed to adequately refer to the evidence on which it based its findings. It was held that the AAT did not comply with the statutory requirement to provide reasons under section 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the AAT's decision, and remitted the matter back to the AAT for reconsideration. Additionally, the court ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is set aside.

3. The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with law.

4. The Respondent is to pay the costs of the Applicant.

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

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

In both forms, Ms Griffiths also certified that she was “fully aware of [her] rights and obligations (as outlined in the ‘How to Claim Compensation’ leaflet)”. That “leaflet”, at least in 2015, contained a “WARNING” as to “[f]alse declarations and concealing information” and stated that it was “a criminal offence to provide any false or misleading information to the Australian Postal Corporation in order to obtain compensation payments”. The challenges to the Tribunal’s conclusions The Amended Notice of Appeal sets forth five Questions of Law. Notwithstanding the variety of ways in which those Questions were drafted, the central question to be resolved focuses upon the expression “that disease” as employed in the concluding words to s 7(7). As expressed in the Applicant’s Outline of Submissions in Reply, that central question is whether s 7(7) on its proper construction:(a)requires no more than a match (to whatever may be the requisite degree) between the description or classification of the “disease” which is the subject of the claim and one or more episodes of the previously suffered “disease” which is the subject of the wilfully false representation; or (b)requires that the “disease” which is the subject of the claim, and the previously suffered “disease” which is the subject of the wilfully false representation, should be a continuation or manifestation of the same “disease”, not just in description, but in substance.It is urged on behalf of Ms Griffiths that the latter construction is the correct construction. That central question is answered in the manner proposed on behalf of Ms Griffiths. In addition to that question, a further question arose as to the adequacy of the Tribunal’s reasons and whether such reasons as have been provided comply with s 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth). Non-compliance with respect to s 43(2B) was raised on behalf of Ms Griffiths both in respect to:·the Tribunal’s findings made as to the “disease” which attracted the entitlement to compensation; and ·the Tribunal’s findings as to whether the representations made by Ms Griffiths were “wilful” for the purposes of s 7(7). It is the failure, with respect, on the part of the Tribunal to comply with the requirements imposed by s 43(2B) which leads to the appeal being allowed.The disease suffered by the employee & “that disease” – s 7(7) The scheme of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act has been repeatedly canvassed: e.g., Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47 at [4] to [18], (2006) 226 CLR 535 at 538 to 543 per Gummow ACJ, Kirby, Callinan, Heydon and Crennan JJ; Telstra Corporation Ltd v Hannaford [2006] FCAFC 87 at [16] to [19], (2006) 151 FCR 253 at 257 to 258 per Conti J; Comcare v Simmons [2014] FCAFC 4 at [44] to [55], (2014) 220 FCR 102 at 113 to 115 per Perry J. In very summary form, the Act provides in s 14(1) for the payment of compensation “in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment”.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.