Jordan v Australian Postal Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Jordan v Australian Postal Corporation [2007] FCA 2028

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Error of law – whole body impairment – use of tables in Comcare Guide – injury – assessment of permanent impairment – requirement to isolate compensable effects from effects of underlying condition where it is possible – failure to give adequate reasons

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 20B, s 43(2), s 43(2B), s 44(5)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 5A, s 24, s 24(5), s 28, s 28(1), s 28(4)

Carson v Comcare [2004] FCAFC 204
Comcare v Amorebieta (1996) 66 FCR 83
Martin v Australian Postal Corporation [1999] FCA 655; 29 AAR 420
Peacock v Repatriation Commission (2007) 161 FCR 256

MAREE JORDAN v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
NSD 1218 OF 2007

BUCHANAN J
19 DECEMBER 2007
SYDNEY


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1218 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

MAREE JORDAN
Appellant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 DECEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is set aside.

2.The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be heard in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

3.The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD 1218 OF 2007

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

MAREE JORDAN
Appellant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

BUCHANAN J

DATE:

19 DECEMBER 2007

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BUCHANAN J:

  1. Mrs Maree Jordan commenced employment with the Australian Postal Corporation (‘Australia Post’) in 1993.  She remained in that employment, as a postal delivery officer, until 3 January 2001.  During the course of her employment she made two claims for compensation with respect to injuries to her right arm or shoulder.  On 22 August 1994 she strained a muscle in her right arm after reaching up while sorting mail.  On 19 July 1996 she suffered a partial tear to a tendon in her right shoulder.  The claims were accepted by Australia Post. 

  2. On 4 May 2004, more than three years after leaving her employment, Mrs Jordan had surgery on her right shoulder.  Shortly before the surgery Dr David Maxwell, on 12 February 2004, provided the following observations:

    ‘Mrs. Maree Jordan still has some symptoms and signs suggestive of right calcific tendonitis involving the supraspinatus tendon causing some impingement of the right shoulder.

    I consider that is probable that the nature and conditions of her work, specifically repetitive use of her right arm, has led to attrition of the right supraspinatus tendon, leading to calcification within the tendon.  This has caused an impingement syndrome.’

  3. Dr Maxwell therefore, in early 2004, attributed Ms Jordon’s difficulties to work related injury or aggravation.  As will be seen,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Jordan v 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
[2007] FCA 2028
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Jordan v Australian Postal Corporation involved the appellant challenging a decision by the respondent regarding the termination of his employment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal had upheld the decision, and the appellant subsequently sought judicial review of that decision. The dispute was heard and determined by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had exercised its discretion in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the Tribunal had adequately considered relevant evidence and made a decision in a manner consistent with the statutory requirements. The appellant argued that the Tribunal had failed to properly assess his case, leading to an unjust outcome.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Tribunal had indeed exercised its discretion in a manner that was inconsistent with the requirements of the statute. The Tribunal had failed to properly consider evidence pertinent to the appellant's case, resulting in an unjust outcome. Consequently, the court set aside the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration. Additionally, the court ordered that the respondent was to pay the appellant's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is set aside.

2. The matter is remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be heard in accordance with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

3. The respondent is to pay the appellant’s costs.

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

BUCHANAN J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: BUCHANAN J

Full text does not contain this section.