FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Guppy v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FCA 489
Citation: Guppy v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FCA 489 Appeal from: Guppy and Australian Postal Corporation [2012] AATA 806 Parties: PATRICIA GUPPY v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION File number: QUD 770 of 2012 Judge: LOGAN J Date of judgment: 8 May 2013 Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION – appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal – employee injured in a work-place injury sought compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – employer accepted liability for injury but declined the applicant compensation because the employee had not reached the threshold level of Whole Person Impairment (WPI) under the approved Guide to the Assessment of Permanent Impairment (2nd ed, 2005) – where an arthroplasty had been performed – where employee also suffered an upper extremity impairment for abnormal motion – whether employee’s permanent impairment should be calculated by determining a WPI rating for abnormal shoulder movement, separately determining a WPI rating for the arthroplasty, and then combining those two ratings to obtain a final WPI rating – or whether the permanent impairment should be calculated by firstly combining the upper extremity impairments arising from both the abnormal shoulder movement and the arthroplasty, and then calculating a single WPI rating
Held: the former calculation is correct
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1976 (Cth) s 44
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 14, 24, 27, 28, 67Cases cited: Canute v Comcare (2006) 226 CLR 535 considered
Comcare v Ticsay (1992) 38 FCR 181 considered
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 considered
Whiteman v Australian Postal Corporation (2011) 199 FCR 433 distinguished
Whittaker v Comcare (1998) 86 FCR 532 consideredDate of hearing: 8 May 2013 Place: Brisbane Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 37 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr D Rangiah SC with Mr M Black Solicitor for the Applicant: Maurice Blackburn Solicitors Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Robinson SC with Mr MJ Gollan Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Piper
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 770 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: PATRICIA GUPPY
ApplicantAND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
JUDGE:
LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
8 MAY 2013
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is allowed.
2.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 16 November 2012 is set aside.
3.The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for further hearing and determination according to law.
4.The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.
Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
QUD 770 of 2012
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: PATRICIA GUPPY
ApplicantAND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
JUDGE:
LOGAN J
DATE:
8 MAY 2013
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Guppy 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] FCA 489
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was the proper method of calculating Guppy's permanent impairment in relation to his shoulder injury, which included an arthroplasty and abnormal motion. The court needed to determine whether the WPI should be calculated by separately assessing the impairment from the arthroplasty and the abnormal shoulder movement, and then combining these ratings. Alternatively, the court had to decide if a single WPI rating should be calculated after combining the impairments from both the arthroplasty and the abnormal shoulder movement.
The court held that the former method of calculation was correct. The court ruled that the WPI should be calculated by separately determining a rating for the abnormal shoulder movement and a rating for the arthroplasty, and then combining these two ratings to obtain a final WPI rating. This decision was based on the understanding that the impairments should be assessed individually before being combined, in line with the guidelines provided in the approved Guide to the Assessment of Permanent Impairment. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for further hearing and determination according to law. Additionally, the employer was ordered to pay Guppy's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 16 November 2012 is set aside.
3. The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for further hearing and determination according to law.
4. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.