Legal Research
Cases
Hull and Australian Postal Corporation

Hull and Australian Postal Corporation

Link copied

Case Copied 5 September 2013 86 min read

Contents

On this page

CATCHWORDS – COMPENSATION – injury – cause - aggravation - incapacity – decisions affirmed.
COMPENSATION - rehabilitation program – failing to undertake rehabilitation program – whether reasonable excuse – decision affirmed.
COMPENSATION - rehabilitation program – whether rehabilitation program should be varied to removed requirement that employee undertake it at former place of employment – decision affirmed.
COMPENSATION - reimbursement of reasonable travel expenses – whether entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses necessitated by employee’s moving residence to regional area and continuing to consult city-based surgeon.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stare decisis – whether bound by judgments of Federal Magistrates’ Court/Federal Circuit Court.
WORDS AND PHRASES – “have regard to”
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2013] AATA 635
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL    )
  )          2012/1945-1947
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION     )          2013/0982-0983
ReTROY HULL
Applicant

AndAUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

DECISION
Tribunal:                   Deputy President S A Forgie
Date:  5 September 2013
Place:  Melbourne
Decision:The Tribunal:
(1)affirms the reviewable decisions dated:
(a)16 April 2012 affirming a determination dated 1 March 2012 that the applicant commence a rehabilitation program dated 1 March 2012 (Application No. 2012/1946);
(b)27 April 2012 affirming a determination dated 5 March 2012 denying liability for payments of compensation in respect of incapacity from 5 March 2012 (Application No. 2012/1947);
(c)28 February 2013 affirming a determination dated 20 November 2012 denying liability to pay compensation for medical expenses for a revision left hip arthroscopy (Application No. 2013/0982);
(d)1 March 2013 affirming a determination dated 13 February 2013 that the applicant was no longer entitled to compensation for medical costs (Application No. 2013/0983); and

(2)in respect of the reviewable decision dated 15 March 2012 affirming a determination dated 3 January 2012:
(a)sets aside the reviewable decision; and
(b)substitutes for it a decision:
(i)setting aside the determination dated 3 January 2012; and
(ii)substituting a determination that the applicant is entitled to reimbursement of his travel expenses relating to return journeys each of 450 kms between Ararat and Melbourne in attending medical appointments with Mr Yap on six occasions between 25 May 2009 and 25 May 2011 and in attending hospital on 15 February 2011 for surgery performed by Mr Yap and a follow-up consultation on 31 May 2011 (Application No. 2012/1945).

_(sgd) S A Forgie_
Deputy President

Commission of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation of Commonwealth Employees v Horan [1991] FCA 208
Commissioner of Police for New South Wales v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales & Raymond Sewell [2009] NSWCA 198
Commissioner of Taxation v Salenger (1988) 19 FCR 378
Commonwealth of Australia v Beattie (1981) 35 ALR 369
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Goodricke v Comcare [2011] FCA 694; (2011) 55 AAR 188
Kennedy v Administrative Appeals Tribunal [2008] FCAFC 124; (2008) 168 FCR 566; 249 ALR 87; 103 ALD 238; [2008] ATC 20-037; 73 ATR 276; 48 AAR 500
Kim v Minister for Immigration [2008] FCAFC 73; (2008) 167 FCR 578; 248 ALR 51
Lafu v Minister for…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hull and Australian Postal Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2013] AATA 635
Decision Date: 5 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Hull, an employee of the Australian Postal Corporation, who sought a review of various decisions concerning his compensation and rehabilitation. Hull's claims related to injuries sustained during his employment and the subsequent decisions regarding his entitlement to compensation, including issues about the cause of his injuries, the reasonableness of rehabilitation programs, and reimbursement for travel expenses. The Federal Circuit Court and the Full Federal Court had previously considered Hull's claims, and the High Court was asked to review these decisions.

The legal issues before the court encompassed several aspects of Hull's compensation claim. These included whether the Federal Circuit Court was bound by previous decisions of the Federal Magistrates’ Court, the extent to which the employer was liable for Hull's injuries, the reasonableness of the rehabilitation program imposed on Hull, and whether Hull was entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses due to changes in his residence and medical consultations. The court was also required to consider the proper interpretation of statutory phrases such as "have regard to" in the context of the relevant legislation.

In its judgment, the court addressed each of the issues in turn. It found that the Full Federal Court was not bound by prior decisions of the Federal Magistrates’ Court but was guided by them in accordance with the principles of stare decisis. Regarding the cause of Hull's injuries, the court affirmed the decisions that Hull's injuries were not solely caused by his employment but were aggravated by it. The court upheld the decisions that Hull was not entitled to a rehabilitation program variation and that he had no reasonable excuse for not undertaking the prescribed rehabilitation. The court also found that Hull was not entitled to reimbursement for travel expenses related to his move to a regional area and consultations with a city-based surgeon.

The court's final orders affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing Hull's appeals and upholding the compensation decisions as made. The judgments of the Federal Circuit Court and the Full Federal Court were thus upheld in their entirety.

Orders