FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
John Holland Pty Ltd v Bartlett [2023] FCA 1030
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read John Holland Pty Ltd v Bartlett 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2023] FCA 1030
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of John Holland Pty Ltd v Bartlett, the Federal Court was called upon to review a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that had determined the respondent was entitled to compensation under s 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The primary issue before the Court was whether the respondent was obligated to provide a medical certificate and a claim form each time a compensation payment was sought under s 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). Additionally, the Court needed to ascertain whether the AAT had failed to make necessary findings about the respondent's incapacity to engage in work at the same level, whether it had taken into account irrelevant considerations, and if it had committed an error of law or failed to provide adequate reasons.
The Court found that the AAT had indeed failed to make critical findings about the respondent's incapacity to engage in work at the same level and had taken into account irrelevant considerations. Furthermore, the Court determined that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the statutory requirements and had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. Consequently, the Court set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the matter back to the AAT to be determined according to law. The Court also allowed the appeal and set aside the AAT's decision that had set aside the reviewable decision and remitted the matter to the applicant for the quantification of entitlements. The matter was ultimately remitted to the AAT for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.
The Court found that the AAT had indeed failed to make critical findings about the respondent's incapacity to engage in work at the same level and had taken into account irrelevant considerations. Furthermore, the Court determined that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the statutory requirements and had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision. Consequently, the Court set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the matter back to the AAT to be determined according to law. The Court also allowed the appeal and set aside the AAT's decision that had set aside the reviewable decision and remitted the matter to the applicant for the quantification of entitlements. The matter was ultimately remitted to the AAT for reconsideration in light of the Court's findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is allowed.
2. The Tribunal’s decision setting aside the reviewable decision and remitting the matter to the applicant for the quantification of entitlements is set aside.
3. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal to be determined according to law.
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
On 21 May 2020, the respondent applied to the Tribunal for review of the reviewable decision. The Tribunal’s decision in relation to that review made on 19 May 2022 is the subject of this appeal.RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE SRC ACT Central to this appeal is a proper understanding of the interrelationship between ss 4, 5, 14, 19, 53 and 54 of the SRC Act. The legislative scheme established by the SRC Act is concerned with compensating Commonwealth employees and employees of licensees, for injuries arising out of, in the course of, or that were significantly contributed to, by their employment. Since its inception, the SRC Act has given “pivotal importance” to the concept of “an injury”: Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47; (2006) 226 CLR 535 at 539, [8]. See also Comcare v Lofts [2013] FCA 1197; (2013) 217 FCR 220 at [9]. The liability to compensate an employee under the SRC Act depends on an “injury”. “Injury” is not used in a “global sense” and the structure of the SRC Act assumes that an employee may suffer more than one “injury”: Canute at [10]. The word “injury” is defined in s 5A of the SRC Act. As a preliminary observation, ss 69(a) and s 72(a) of the SRC Act, provide that John Holland, as a licensee, has the same functions as Comcare depending on the scope of its licence:69Subject to this Act, Comcare has the following functions, in addition to its other functions under this Act:(a)to make determinations accurately and quickly in relation to claims and requests made to Comcare under this Act;(b)…72 In performing the function referred to in paragraph 69(a), Comcare:(a)shall be guided by equity, good conscience and the substantial merits of the case, without regard to technicalities;(b)… Section 4(8) of the SRC Act provides that:A reference in this Act to an injury suffered by an employee is, unless the contrary intention appears, a reference to an injury suffered by the employee in respect of which compensation is payable under this Act. Section 5A defines “injury” as meaning, amongst other things:(a)…(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employees employment; or(c)an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment. The structure of the SRC Act is such that the SRC Act does not apply in relation to an injury to an employee unless notice in writing of the injury is given to the relevant authority in accordance with the requirements of s 53. Section 53 provides:(1)This Act does not apply in relation to an injury to an employee unless notice in writing of the injury is given to the relevant authority:(a) as soon as practicable after the employee becomes aware of the injury; or(b)… Notice having been given in accordance with s 53, s 54 provides for the claims procedure:54 Claims for compensation(1)Compensation is not payable to a person under this Act unless a claim for compensation is made by or on behalf of the person under this section.(2)A claim shall be made by giving the relevant authority:(a)a written claim in accordance with the form approved by Comcare for the purposes of this paragraph; and(b)except where the claim is for compensation under section 16 or 17—a certificate by a legally qualified medical practitioner in accordance with the form approved by Comcare for the purposes of this paragraph.(3)Where a written claim, other than a claim for compensation under section 16 or 17, is given to a relevant authority under paragraph (2)(a) and the claim is not accompanied by a certificate of the kind referred to in paragraph (2)(b), the claim shall be taken not to have been made until such a certificate is given to that authority.(4)If a claim relating to an employee is given to Comcare, Comcare must cause a copy of the claim to be given to the principal officer of the Entity, Commonwealth authority or licensed corporation in which the employee was employed at that time.(5)Strict compliance with an approved form referred to in subsection (2) is not required and substantial compliance is sufficient.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.