Henry, W.L. v Australian & Overseas Telecommunications Corp - [1993] FCA 201

WILLIAM LESLIE HENRY v. AUSTRALIAN AND OVERSEAS TELECOMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATION
No. NG580 of 1992
FED No. 201
Number of pages - 10
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Beazley J(1)

CATCHWORDS

Administrative law - liability of employer to pay compensation - whether employment a contributing factor to the contraction, aggravation or acceleration of the disease - whether Tribunal failed to consider a submission worthy of serious consideration - whether Tribunal failed to provide sufficient reasons for its findings - whether possible to determine from Tribunal's reasons if correct test in respect of "disease" applied pursuant to s. 29 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss.43, 44(1)

Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation And Compensation Act 1988

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 ss.5, 27(1), 29

Dennis Willcox Pty. Limited v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation 79 ALR 268

Delahunty v. Commonwealth (1981) 53 FLR 9

Dornan and Ors. v. Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564

Australian Telecommunications Commission v. Barker (1990) 12 AAR 490

Telescourt v. The Commonwealth (1991) 29 FCR 227

Bisley Investment Corporation and Anor. v. Australian Broadcasting Tribunal and Anor. (1982) 40 ALR 233.

Commonwealth of Australia v. Pharmacy Guild of Australia and Anor. (1989) 91 ALR 65

HEARING

SYDNEY, 5 March 1993

#DATE 8:4:1993

Counsel for the Applicant: G.M. Elliott

Solicitors for the Applicant: Carroll and O'Dea

Counsel for the Respondent: G.M. Watson

Solicitors for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore and Withycombe

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The decision under review be set aside.

2. The applicant's application for reconsideration be remitted for determination according to law.

3. The respondent pay the applicant's costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

BEAZLEY J This is an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal pursuant to s.44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, (the Act) in which the Tribunal reviewed a decision of the respondent, dated 30 August 1990, which affirmed an earlier decision of the 27 April 1990 denying liability to pay compensation to the applicant pursuant to the Commonwealth Employees' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The applicant had commenced employment with the then Post Master General's Department in 1970, first as a linesman, laying cable, digging trenches, doing pipe and pit work and some aerial work. In 1977 he became an acting line serviceman and in 1979 was promoted to the position of line serviceman. His duties at that time involved a greater degree of supervisory work but he still performed heavy lifting and bending work. Prior to joining the Post Master General's Department, the applicant had performed general farm and shearing work. At the time of commencing his employment with the respondent, he was in good health and had no history of back trouble.
On 24 July 1972, the applicant sustained an injury to his back when, whilst standing on the edge of a manhole, he fell backwards and…

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 Henry, W.L. v Australian & Overseas Telecommunications Corp

Details

AGLC: Henry, W.L. v. Australian & Overseas Telecommunications Corp. [1993] FCA 201
Case: [1993] FCA 201
Decision Date: 08 APRIL 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Henry, W.L. v Australian & Overseas Telecommunications Corp arose before the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Mr. Henry, sought compensation from the respondent, the Australian & Overseas Telecommunications Corporation, for a disease that he claimed was contracted, aggravated, or accelerated by his employment. The primary issue before the court was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had correctly applied the law in assessing the applicant's claim. Specifically, the court examined whether the AAT appropriately considered submissions made by the applicant and provided sufficient reasons for its findings. The court was also required to determine if the AAT had applied the correct legal test in respect of the "disease" under section 29 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act.

In addressing these issues, the court noted that the AAT had not adequately considered certain submissions made by the applicant that were worthy of serious consideration. Furthermore, the reasons provided by the AAT were insufficient to ascertain whether the correct legal test was applied. The court found that the AAT's reasoning was inadequate as it did not clearly articulate how the evidence related to the applicant's disease and employment was assessed against the statutory criteria. The court held that the AAT's failure to provide comprehensive and coherent reasons rendered the decision reviewable. Consequently, the court concluded that the decision under review should be set aside, and the matter should be remitted to the AAT for reconsideration according to law.

In its final orders, the court set aside the decision of the AAT, remitted the matter for reconsideration, and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant's costs. The court's decision underscores the importance of thorough and transparent reasoning in administrative law decisions, particularly when complex medical and employment issues are at stake.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The decision under review be set aside.

2. The applicant's application for reconsideration be remitted for determination according to law.

3. The respondent pay the applicant's costs.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.