Lee v Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd - [2013] FCA 1322

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lee v Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1322

Citation: Lee v Transpacific Industries Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 1322

Parties: WAYNE LEE v TRANSPACIFIC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD

File number(s): WAD 324 of 2012

Judge(s): SIOPIS J

Date of judgment: 6 December 2013

Catchwords:
APPEAL – whether to grant an application to extend time within which to appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

WORKERS COMPENSATION – whether the employee suffered an injury within the meaning of s 5A of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – an employer arranged for an employee to attend a medical appointment in a distant town in respect of a work related injury – the employer provided the transport for the round trip journey of 8 to 10 hours duration – the employee was injured when he slipped on the forecourt of a roadhouse while taking a toilet break on his way back from the medical appointment – whether the injury suffered at the roadhouse occurred in the course of the employment – whether the Tribunal properly applied the Hatzimanolis principle.

Legislation:
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 43(2), 43(2B), 44(2A)(a), 44(4)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 5A(1), 5A(1)(b), 6(1)(f), 14, 62

Cases cited:
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473
Gregory v Comcare Australia (1997) 72 FCR 196
Comcare v PVYW (2013) 303 ALR 1
Repatriation Commission v Butcher (2007) 94 ALD 364
Statham v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 20 ATR 228

Date of hearing: 21 February 2013

Date of last submissions: 20 November 2013

Place: Perth

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 61

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A Anforth

Solicitor for the Applicant: Slater & Gordon Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr B Kelly

Solicitor for the Respondent: HBA Legal

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 324 of 2012

BETWEEN:
WAYNE LEE
Applicant

AND:
TRANSPACIFIC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

SIOPIS J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 DECEMBER 2013

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The applicant’s application of 21 November 2012 for an extension of time within which to appeal is allowed.
2.The applicant’s appeal is allowed.
3.The parties are to deliver a minute of orders in respect of relief and costs if they are able to agree, but in the event that they are not able to agree, the respondent is to file and serve its submissions within 7 days, and the applicant is to file and serve his submissions in response within 3 days thereafter.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

WAD 324 of 2012

BETWEEN:
WAYNE LEE
Applicant

AND:
TRANSPACIFIC INDUSTRIES PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGE:

SIOPIS J

DATE:

6 DECEMBER 2013

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an application for an extension of time within which to appeal…

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 Lee v Transpacific Industries Pty 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: [2013] FCA 1322
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Wayne Lee, sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The decision concerned a claim for workers' compensation in respect of an injury Mr Lee suffered at a roadhouse while on his way back from a medical appointment. The Tribunal rejected the claim, finding that the injury did not occur in the course of employment. The Federal Court granted an extension of time for the appeal and allowed the appeal. The Court found that the Tribunal erred in applying the principle established in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd. The injury Mr Lee suffered at the roadhouse occurred in the course of his employment because it occurred while he was engaged in an activity that his employer had encouraged or induced him to undertake. The Court did not remit the matter to the Tribunal because it was of the view that it could exercise its powers under s 44(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) without having to send the matter back to the Tribunal.

Orders