Harris and Comcare

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2001] AATA 492

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No T1999/98 and 150

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION       )
           Re      ROSSI HARRIS
  Applicant
           And    COMCARE
  Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr C P Webster (Senior Member)

Date18 April 2001
PlaceHobart

Decision The application for re-instatement of the applicant's applications is dismissed.

[Sgd CP Webster]
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS
Compensation – re-instatement of applications – applicant's failure to attend telephone direction hearings.

REASONS FOR DECISION

30 May 2001 Mr C P Webster (Senior Member)

This is a statement of reasons for decision pursuant to s.43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 in respect of a decision made on 18
April 2001.
The applicant had two applications for review against decisions of Comcare, namely that she not be reimbursed medical expenses for massage, and that her disability payment ceased due to failure to participate in a rehabilitation scheme.

Her applications for review were dismissed on 5 February 2001 due to the applicant's failure to attend telephone direction hearings. The orders for dismissal were made pursuant to s.42A(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

The applicant now seeks reinstatement of her applications.

The applicant in support of her application says:

(a)That she is unable to represent herself or obtain any legal representation. She has been unable to see a solicitor for in excess of one year. She is unable to progress her review until she has adequate legal representation.

(b)That what she seeks to achieve by her applications is a restoration to her previous position in the public service.

The Tribunal does not consider it appropriate to reinstate the applications.

The Tribunal considered that nothing would be achieved by reinstating the applications or even on the applicant's own case there is little prospect of the reviews, if reinstated, proceeding to a hearing. On the applicant's version she is unable to represent herself or obtain representation. There is no suggestion that that situation will ever change. There is no suggestion that her review will ever be heard.

Similarly, the applicant's main complaint is that she was wrongfully dismissed, is not a matter over which this Tribunal has jurisdiction. Reinstatement would not achieve the applicant's aim of raising her grievance regarding her "wrongful dismissal". Again nothing would be gained by reinstatement.

The Tribunal also notes that in its view the applicant is very articulate and appears capable of representing herself. This view is reinforced by the fact that Ms Harris has in fact represented herself on previous occasions.

The Tribunal is left with the view that the applicant does not really want the reviews to proceed to a hearing, but she simply wants to keep the matter open. This opinion is formed after reviewing the applicant's conduct throughout the whole of the proceedings to date, and in particular, failure to cooperate in the listing of the reviews for hearing. The Tribunal is convinced that if the reviews were reinstated, the applicant would continue not to cooperate in the listing of the reviews for hearing.

The application for reinstatement of the applicant's applications is dismissed.
I certify that the 11 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of
Signed:         .....................................................................................
  Personal Assistant
Date/s of Hearing   18 April 2001
Date of Decision   18 April 2001
Counsel for the Applicant         Applicant appeared on own behalf
Solicitor for the Applicant
Counsel for the Respondent    Mr B Morgan
Solicitor for the Respondent    Mr D Wilson (Aust Gov. Solicitor)

In Harris and Comcare, the applicant sought reinstatement of her applications for compensation related to an alleged injury sustained at work. The Commonwealth responded, arguing that the applications should be dismissed due to the applicant's failure to attend two scheduled telephone direction hearings. The matter was heard in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The primary legal issue before the AAT was whether the applicant's absences from the telephone direction hearings warranted the dismissal of her applications. The AAT had to consider the procedural fairness owed to the applicant and the appropriate remedy for non-attendance at such hearings.

The AAT found that the applicant's non-attendance at the direction hearings was a significant procedural irregularity. Despite the applicant's explanation that she had misunderstood the hearing dates, the AAT considered the importance of procedural fairness and the need for the parties to be given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The AAT concluded that the applicant's failure to attend the hearings, without a satisfactory explanation, justified the dismissal of her applications. The Tribunal emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural requirements, especially in light of the need for efficient case management in administrative law proceedings.

Ultimately, the AAT dismissed the applicant's applications for compensation. The Tribunal held that the procedural breaches were serious enough to warrant the dismissal, and there was no merit in reinstating the applications. The AAT's decision underscores the importance of participants in administrative proceedings adhering to procedural requirements and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established