Hume and Total Marine Services Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 77 min read

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 1135

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)           No W2002/190   

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re   DAVID ANDREW HUME

Applicant

And

  TOTAL MARINE SERVICES PTY LTD

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Associate Professor S D Hotop, Deputy President

Date29 October 2004

PlacePerth

Decision

The Tribunal sets aside the deemed reviewable decision of the respondent and, in substitution therefor, decides that the respondent is liable, pursuant to ss 24 and 26(1) of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) (“the Act”), to pay compensation to the applicant under the Act for a lower back injury sustained by him on 20 April 2001, and the amount of compensation that the respondent is liable to pay to the applicant from March 2002, in accordance with s 31 of the Act, is as follows:

· for the period from March 2002 to 31 December 2003 – pursuant to s 31(5)(d) of the Act, an amount that, when added to the amount that the applicant was able to earn during each week in suitable employment (as determined on the basis of the Tribunal’s finding set out in paragraph 93 of its Reasons for Decision herein) results in an amount equal to 90% of his “normal weekly earnings” (as defined in s 13 of the Act);

· for the period from 1 January 2004 onwards – pursuant to s 31(5)(f) of the Act, an amount that, when added to the amount that the applicant was able to earn during each week in suitable employment (as determined on the basis of the Tribunal’s finding set out in paragraph 93 of its Reasons for Decision herein) results in an amount equal to 100% of his “normal weekly earnings” (as defined in s 13 of the Act).

The Tribunal orders, pursuant to s 92(1) of the Act, that the respondent pay the costs of the applicant of these proceedings, such costs, in the absence of agreement between the parties as to the amount thereof, to be taxed by a District Registrar or a Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal in accordance with clause 6 of the Tribunal’s General Practice Direction dated 18 May 1998.

..............(sgd S D Hotop)...............

Deputy President 

1. David Andrew Hume (“the applicant”) has applied to the Tribunal for review of a “reviewable decision” deemed to have been made on or about 21 May 2002, pursuant to s 79(6) of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992(Cth) (“the Act”), by Total Marine Services Pty Ltd (“the respondent”). The effect of that deemed reviewable decision was that a determination of the respondent, dated 18 March 2002, to terminate incapacity payments which had been made to the applicant pursuant to s 31(2) of the Act, was affirmed.

2. At the hearing, the applicant was represented by Mr D Leask, solicitor, and the respondent was represented by Mr G Hancy of counsel. The Tribunal had before it the statement and accompanying documents (“T documents”) lodged on behalf of the respondent pursuant…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hume and Total Marine Services Pty Ltd 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
[2004] AATA 1135
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by the applicant, Hume, against the respondent, Total Marine Services Pty Ltd, concerning compensation for a lower back injury sustained by Hume in April 2001 while employed on a vessel operated by the respondent. Hume had received incapacity payments from the respondent until March 2002, after which he worked as a casual and then full-time lecturer at a TAFE college. The dispute centred around the liability of the respondent for compensation under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) and the appropriate amount of compensation payable to Hume.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent was liable for compensation under sections 24 and 26(1) of the Act and, if so, the amount of compensation payable from March 2002 onwards. The court had to determine whether Hume's employment as a lecturer constituted suitable employment under the Act and assess the weekly earnings he was able to achieve in that role to determine the compensation payable. The court also needed to consider the respondent's liability for compensation under section 31 of the Act, taking into account Hume's capacity to earn in suitable employment.

The court found that the respondent was indeed liable to pay compensation under sections 24 and 26(1) of the Act. It determined that Hume's employment as a TAFE lecturer constituted suitable employment, and it assessed his weekly earnings based on the Tribunal's findings. The compensation payable from March 2002 was set at an amount that, when added to Hume's weekly earnings, would equal 90% of his normal weekly earnings until December 2003 and 100% thereafter. The court set aside the respondent's decision and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the deemed reviewable decision of the respondent and, in substitution therefor, decides that the respondent is liable, pursuant to ss 24 and 26(1) of the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) (“the Act”), to pay compensation to the applicant under the Act for a lower back injury sustained by him on 20 April 2001, and the amount of compensation that the respondent is liable to pay to the applicant from March 2002, in accordance with s 31 of the Act, is as follows:

· for the period from March 2002 to 31 December 2003 – pursuant to s 31(5)(d) of the Act, an amount that, when added to the amount that the applicant was able to earn during each week in suitable employment (as determined on the basis of the Tribunal’s finding set out in paragraph 93 of its Reasons for Decision herein) results in an amount equal to 90% of his “normal weekly earnings” (as defined in s 13 of the Act);

· for the period from 1 January 2004 onwards – pursuant to s 31(5)(f) of the Act, an amount that, when added to the amount that the applicant was able to earn during each week in suitable employment (as determined on the basis of the Tribunal’s finding set out in paragraph 93 of its Reasons for Decision herein) results in an amount equal to 100% of his “normal weekly earnings” (as defined in s 13 of the Act).

The Tribunal orders, pursuant to s 92(1) of the Act, that the respondent pay the costs of the applicant of these proceedings, such costs, in the absence of agreement between the parties as to the amount thereof, to be taxed by a District Registrar or a Deputy Registrar of the Tribunal in accordance with clause 6 of the Tribunal’s General Practice Direction dated 18 May 1998.

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.