Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth of Australia

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

Re: JOHN KIRKPATRICK
And: COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
No. G.34 of 1985
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Davies J.
Beaumont J.
Burchett J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Commonwealth Employees Compensation - Compensation neurosis - Neurosis engendered by genuine belief that the employment was a contributing factor to a disability which was in fact unrelated to the employment - Use of medical dictionary by A.A.T. in order better to understand medical evidence.

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975

Federal Broom Co. Pty. Ltd. v. Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626.

Migge v. Wormald Bros. Industries Ltd. (1972) 2 NSWLR 29; and on appeal, 47 ALJR 236.

Australian Telecommunications Commission v. Tzikas, unreported, Full Court, Smithers, Sweeney and Woodward JJ., 12 August 1985.

McMullen v. Commissioner for Superannuation (1985) 61 ALR 189.

HEARING

SYDNEY
#DATE 26:11:1985

ORDER

The appeal be dismissed.

Liberty to the Respondent to apply for the costs of the appeal, if so advised.

Note: Settlement and entry of order is dealt with by Order 36

of the Federal Court Rules.
JUDGE1

This is an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming a decision of the Delegate of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation that the Commonwealth was not liable to make weekly payments of compensation under s.45 or s.46 of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 from 21 April 1981 in respect of a personal injury sustained by the applicant on 3 November 1980.

  1. The Tribunal dealt with the matter on a somewhat wider basis than one confined to the claim with which the decision of the Delegate had been concerned. No complaint is made in this respect. The case sought to be made before the Tribunal involved the following facts. The applicant, who was born on 2 February 1926, worked at Garden Island as an electrical fitter for almost thirty years. On 23 December 1979 a stool upon which he was seated at work slipped from under him, causing him to fall onto his buttocks. He suffered a coccydynia and was absent from work for six weeks. He received payments of compensation for the period from 21 December 1979 to 1 February 1980. Thereafter he worked until 3 November 1980, when a metal cylinder, in relation to which he was doing some work, fell onto his left fourth toe fracturing the proximal phalanx. He received compensation again until 20 April 1981, when an orthopaedic surgeon, Dr. W.G. Donaldson, certified him fit to return to work. However the applicant did not accept the doctor's view, and has not worked since. He took a period of extended sick leave, after which he resigned from his employment on 13 May 1982.

  2. At the time Dr. Donaldson expressed the view that the applicant was fit to return to work, there is no suggestion that his complaints related to any psychiatric condition. His only symptoms then…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth of Australia 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
[1985] FCA 594
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth of Australia was heard before the High Court. The appellant, Kirkpatrick, sought compensation for a disability resulting from his employment, which he believed to be related to his work, although it was later found to be unrelated. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had previously dismissed his application for compensation, and he appealed that decision to the Federal Court, which was subsequently appealed to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Kirkpatrick was entitled to compensation for a neurosis that was caused by his genuine belief that his employment contributed to his disability, even though the disability itself was unrelated to his employment. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the AAT was justified in relying on a medical dictionary to understand the medical evidence presented.

In addressing these issues, the court found that while Kirkpatrick's neurosis was genuine, it did not arise from his employment. The neurosis was instead a result of his mistaken belief that his employment was a contributing factor to his disability. The court also considered the use of a medical dictionary by the AAT to be an appropriate method for understanding complex medical evidence, provided that the dictionary was used in conjunction with expert medical evidence. The court held that the AAT's decision was not flawed, and thus the appeal was dismissed.

The court ordered that the appeal be dismissed and that the respondent be granted liberty to apply for the costs of the appeal, subject to the advice of their legal representatives. The settlement and entry of the order were to be dealt with in accordance with Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be dismissed.

Liberty to the Respondent to apply for the costs of the appeal, if so advised.

Note: Settlement and entry of order is dealt with by 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.