Jamandilovski, v Telstra Corporation Ltd - [1994] FCA 1012

VLADIMIR JAMANDILOVSKI v. TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
No. NG22 of 1994
FED No. 1012/94
Number of pages - 20
Administrative Law - Practice and Procedure

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
LINDGREN J

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - appeal from decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - adequacy of reasons for decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - whether findings supported by medical evidence - preference of one medical expert's evidence over that of another - whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal discharged its obligations under s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

Practice And Procedure - extension of time for the institution of an appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ss 43, 44.

HEARING

SYDNEY, 13 October 1994
#DATE 21:12:1994

Mr D J Higgs of counsel instructed by I S P Law appeared for the applicant.

Mr P S Jones of counsel instructed by Hunt and Hunt appeared for the respondent.

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS:
1. THAT the time allowed by sub-section 44 (2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) for the applicant to appeal to this Court under sub-section 44 (1) of that Act from the decision given on 8 December 1993 in the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by M T Lewis (Senior Member), J D Campbell (Member) and I R Way (Member) in proceedings N92/325, be extended to 19 January 1994.
2. THAT the application be dismissed.
3. THAT the applicant pay the respondent's costs.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
LINDGREN J The applicant appeals pursuant to sub-section 44 (1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the AAT Act") from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the AAT") in its General Administrative Division given on 8 December 1993. That decision affirmed decisions of the delegate of his then employer, the Australian Telecommunications Corporation, the predecessor of the respondent, on 5 October 1989 and 28 January 1992. Those decisions had themselves been affirmed on reconsideration on 30 April 1992. The applicant had applied to his employer, for compensation in respect of an alleged back injury suffered by him on 6 April 1989 and an alleged repetitive strain injury to his left shoulder and neck culminating in the making of a claim on 18 October 1991. The delegate had determined that the employer was not liable to pay compensation in respect of the back injury on and from 27 July 1989 and was not liable to pay compensation in respect of the repetitive strain injury at all.

It was not disputed on the hearing of the appeal that, as the AAT had said, the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the SR and C Act") applied. Sub-section 4 (1) of the SR and C Act defined "injury" compensable under that Act as follows:

" ........ ........…

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 Jamandilovski, v Telstra Corporation 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: [1994] FCA 1012
Decision Date: 21 DECEMBER 1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Jamandilovski appealed against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had dismissed his application for an extension of time to lodge a claim for compensation for a work-related injury. The AAT found that the applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the extension. The applicant argued that the AAT had not adequately considered his medical evidence and had wrongly preferred the evidence of one expert over another.

The court considered whether the AAT had discharged its obligation under section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to provide reasons for its decision. The court found that the AAT had provided adequate reasons and had properly considered the medical evidence presented. The AAT had given reasons for preferring the evidence of one expert over the other and had not erred in its evaluation of the evidence. The court held that the AAT had fulfilled its obligations under the Act.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the applicant's appeal and ordered that the time for appealing to the court from the AAT decision be extended to 19 January 1994. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS:

1. THAT the time allowed by sub-section 44 (2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) for the applicant to appeal to this Court under sub-section 44 (1) of that Act from the decision given on 8 December 1993 in the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by M T Lewis (Senior Member), J D Campbell (Member) and I R Way (Member) in proceedings N92/325, be extended to 19 January 1994.

2. THAT the application be dismissed.

3. THAT the applicant pay the respondent'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.