Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd v Richards

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Howard Smith Industries Pty Ltd v Richards [1999] FCA 1310

Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth): s 6

HOWARD SMITH INDUSTRIES PTY LTD v JAMES PAUL RICHARDS
VG 62 of 1998

GOLDBERG J
MELBOURNE
10 SEPTEMBER 1999

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	No VG 62 of 1998

BETWEEN:	HOWARD SMITH INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 004 082 062) Applicant
AND:	JAMES PAUL RICHARDS Respondent
JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	10 SEPTEMBER 1999
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The appeal is allowed.

2.The decision of the Tribunal dated 2 February 1998 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal differently constituted to determine the compensation (if any) to be paid by the applicant to the respondent in respect of that amount of the respondent’s hearing loss and impairment and tinnitus, which occurred on and after 24 June 1993.

3.        The respondent pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal, including reserved costs.

4.A certificate be granted pursuant to s 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) to the respondent stating that in the opinion of the Court it is appropriate for the Attorney‑General to authorise a payment under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) to the respondent in respect of:

(a)the costs incurred by the respondent in relation to this appeal;

(b)any costs incurred by the appellant in respect of the appeal that are required to be paid by the respondent to the appellant in pursuance of this order.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	No VG 62 of 1998

BETWEEN:	HOWARD SMITH INDUSTRIES PTY LTD (ACN 004 082 062) Applicant
AND:	JAMES PAUL RICHARDS Respondent

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE:	10 SEPTEMBER 1999
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. On 3 September 1999 I published my reasons for reaching the conclusion that the appeal in this matter should be allowed and the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) set aside.  I incorporate by reference into these reasons those reasons for judgment. 

2. Those reasons involved a consideration of the scheme whereby there was a change from the regime for seafarers rehabilitation under the Seamen’s Compensation Act 1911 (Cth) to a new regime under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) (“the 1992 Act”). To provide for the facilitation of that new regime there was also enacted the Seafarers Rehabilitation Compensation (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 1992 (Cth) (“the Transitional Act”). 

3. The matter which came before me essentially involved a consideration of that part of the statutory scheme found in the Transitional Act and particular provisions of the 1992 Act in particular ss 11, 39 and 41.

4. Although a number of points were raised in the notice of appeal the appellant confined itself to a consideration of what I will call loosely the proper construction of the 1992 legislative scheme, the inter‑relation…