FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hollis v Comcare [2017] FCA 558
Appeal from: Hollis and Comcare (Compensation) [2017] AATA 49 File number: NSD 253 of 2017 Judge: KATZMANN J Date of judgment: 26 May 2017 Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW — appeal from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal — parties in agreement that Tribunal erred in law in one respect requiring remittal of matter to Tribunal for rehearing — dispute as to terms of remittal and constitution of Tribunal — whether remittal should be limited to deciding the point underlying the ground of appeal raising the admitted error or whether it should be unlimited in its scope — whether remittal should be to the same Tribunal or whether the Tribunal should be reconstituted Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 19A, 44
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 37M
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss 5A, 5B, 14, 16
Cases cited: Comcare v Broadhurst (2011) 192 FCR 497
Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43; (2016) 339 ALR 1; 91 ALJR 29
Industry Research and Development Board v IMT Ltd [2001] FCA 85
Northern NSW FM Pty Limited v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1990) 26 FCR 39
Date of hearing: 19 May 2017 Registry: New South Wales Division: General Division National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 43 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr L T Grey with Mr J Mrsic Solicitor for the Applicant: Commcomp Lawyers Solicitor for the Respondent: Mr M Snell of Lehmann Snell Lawyers ORDERS
NSD 253 of 2017 BETWEEN: JANELLE HOLLIS
Applicant
AND: COMCARE
Respondent
JUDGE:
KATZMANN J
DATE OF ORDER:
26 MAY 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be allowed.
2.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 24 January 2017 be set aside.
3.The matter be remitted for rehearing according to law before a differently constituted tribunal.
4.Unless the Tribunal otherwise orders or the parties agree, except for additional medical evidence, the rehearing be conducted on the evidence adduced in the previous hearing.
5.The respondent pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or taxed.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
6.The decision is set aside on the agreed basis that the Tribunal failed to consider, in accordance with the decision in Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43; (2016) 91 ALJR 29 at [42]–[47], whether in relation to the instances it identified of “reasonable administrative action”, the applicant would not have suffered from her disease or its aggravation if that action had not been taken.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Janelle Hollis was a Commonwealth employee for some 22 years. In October 2013 she lodged a claim for compensation for anxiety and depression, which she attributed to a number of events at her workplace over an 11-month period. Her right to compensation is governed by the terms of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC…
Continue reading Hollis v Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Hollis v Comcare [2017] FCA 558
- Case
- [2017] FCA 558
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the scope of the remittal of the matter back to the AAT for rehearing. The appellant argued that the remittal should be limited to the specific point of error identified by the parties, whereas Comcare contended that the remittal should be broader, allowing the AAT to re-evaluate the entire decision. Another significant issue was the composition of the AAT panel that would conduct the rehearing, with the appellant advocating for a reconstituted tribunal due to potential bias, a point Comcare opposed.
The court concluded that the AAT's decision needed to be set aside and the matter remitted for rehearing. The court held that the remittal should be limited to the specific error identified, ensuring that the AAT focus on the precise legal issue that led to the appeal. Additionally, the court determined that a differently constituted tribunal should conduct the rehearing to avoid any perception of bias. The court ordered that unless otherwise directed by the tribunal or agreed by the parties, the rehearing should proceed with the evidence presented in the previous hearing, except for any additional medical evidence.
The court further ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs as agreed or taxed. The decision was set aside based on the agreed premise that the AAT had failed to consider whether, in relation to the instances of "reasonable administrative action", the appellant would not have suffered from her disease or its aggravation if that action had not been taken. The orders were entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be allowed.
2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 24 January 2017 be set aside.
3. The matter be remitted for rehearing according to law before a differently constituted tribunal.
4. Unless the Tribunal otherwise orders or the parties agree, except for additional medical evidence, the rehearing be conducted on the evidence adduced in the previous hearing.
5. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or taxed.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
6. The decision is set aside on the agreed basis that the Tribunal failed to consider, in accordance with the decision in Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43; (2016) 91 ALJR 29 at [42]–[47], whether in relation to the instances it identified of “reasonable administrative action”, the applicant would not have suffered from her disease or its aggravation if that action had not been taken.
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.