Hammond and Australian Postal Corporation

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 693

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL       )          No N2005/1482

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)  )
Re		BRUCE HAMMOND

Applicant

And AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Ms N. Isenberg, Member

Date10 August 2006

PlaceSydney

Decision The Tribunal decides not to exercise the discretion to grant an extension of time.

[SGD] Ms N. Isenberg
Member

  

21.     I was referred to a summary of developments in the matter after the solicitors were engaged.  In November 2003 the solicitor informed Australia Post that he had some instructions to appeal against determinations and he asked for certain materials.  He followed that up with an FOI request and then, some months later, asked for a reconsideration of two determinations made on 28 May and 9 September 2003.  Australia Post responded to that and told him that those two determinations had already been reviewed, both of them at Mr Hammond's request.  Several months of 2004 passed and the solicitor sent Australia Post a medical report and declared that Mr Hammond was entitled to compensation because of his total incapacity for work.  By that time, almost a year had passed since Mr Hammond instructed the solicitor.

22.     The solicitor wrote to Australia Post in October 2004 requesting reconsideration of all determinations that it had made.  Australia Post responded that this was not a proper request for a reconsideration because no reasons had been set out in it.  More than five months later, on 22 March 2005, the solicitor wrote to Australia Post asking for an extension of time to review determinations, including those which are the subject of this application.

23.     After prompting by Australia Post, the solicitor provided, a couple of months later, reasons for seeking the extension of time.  Australia Post reminded him again that it needed reasons to support the request for reconsideration and these were provided in August 2005.  Australia Post, which had been responding promptly to correspondence from the solicitor, reconsidered the determinations of 11 April 2003 and 10 November 2004 on 5 August 2005.  The determination of 28 May 2003 was not reviewed, as it had already been reviewed on 17 June 2003.

24.     Then, for reasons which are not explained, it was not until 18 November 2005 that an application for review was filed in this Tribunal.

(c) is there any prejudice to Australia Post that would be caused by granting the extension of time?

25.     This is primarily a case about causation and whether an aggravation suffered by the Applicant in 1996 has ceased to be significant in incapacitating him.

26.     I was referred to Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 54. There, at 551, McHugh J stated:

“… The longer the delay in commencing proceedings, the more likely it is that the case will be decided on less evidence than was available to the parties at the time that the cause of action arose.

…

... [P]eople should be able to arrange their…