Kuchlmayr and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Kuchlmayr to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of a decision made by the AAT on 21 June 2018. The original decision, made pursuant to section 42C of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), reflected Terms of Agreement reached between Ms Kuchlmayr and the Australian Capital Territory concerning a claim for workers' compensation. Ms Kuchlmayr sought to have this consent decision reviewed more than two years after it was made, alleging that it was based on false and misleading information provided by her employer, ACT Health, amounting to fraud.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed the jurisdiction to review a decision made under section 42C of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), particularly when the review was sought on the grounds that the underlying factual basis for the consent decision was flawed due to alleged fraud. The Tribunal was required to determine if it had the power to revisit a finalised decision, even if new evidence or allegations of misconduct emerged after the decision was made.

Deputy President Gary Humphries Ao P reasoned that the AAT's power to review decisions is generally limited to specific reviewable decisions outlined in Commonwealth legislation and can typically be exercised only once. The Tribunal lacks a general power to interfere with legal rights or to reopen finalised decisions, unlike courts which may have limited powers to do so and direct parties to appeal. The principle that a decision-maker becomes *functus officio* after making a decision applies equally to decisions made on the merits after a full hearing and those reached by consent under section 42C. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that it did not have the jurisdiction to review the consent decision of 21 June 2018, as its statutory power to review that matter was exhausted upon its making.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed Ms Kuchlmayr's application for review, finding that it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain the application.