ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”) – Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”) – jurisdiction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the AAT”) to decide matters not the subject of a reviewable reason pursuant to s 62 of the Act – structure of decision-making process and review process of the Act
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”) – entitlement to and liability for compensation for injury – whether the AAT has jurisdiction to make a decision on an entitlement under the Act which was not already subject of consideration by Comcare under the Act
WENDY LEES v COMCARE AND PAMELA BURTON in her capacity as Senior Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
AG 101 of 1998
WILCOX, BRANSON AND TAMBERLIN JJ SYDNEY 7 JUNE 1999
COMCARE v JUSTICE MATHEWS AND SENIOR MEMBER R. HANDLEY in their capacities as President and Senior Member respectively of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal AND TERENCE O’DONOHUE
NG 1393 of 1998
WILCOX, BRANSON AND TAMBERLIN JJ
SYDNEY
7 JUNE 1999
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
NG 1393 of 1998
BETWEEN:
COMCARE Applicant
AND:
JUSTICE MATHEWS and SENIOR MEMBER R. HANDLEY in their capacities as President and Senior Member respectively of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal First Respondent
TERENCE O'DONOHUE Second Respondent
JUDGES:
WILCOX, BRANSON AND TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
7 JUNE 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The direction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 25 November 1998 that the hearing of the matter proceed upon the basis that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a claim for permanent impairment under s 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) be set aside.
2.It be declared that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in the hearing of the present appeal, does not have power to determine the second respondent’s claim for permanent impairment.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
DISTRICT TERRITORY
AG 101 of 1998
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
WENDY LEES Appellant
AND:
COMCARE First Respondent
PAMELA BURTON, in her capacity as Senior Member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Second Respondent
JUDGES:
WILCOX, BRANSON AND TAMBERLIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
7 JUNE 1999
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIAAG 101 of 1998 AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
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.
Continue reading Lees v Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753
Case
[1999] FCA 753
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Lees v Comcare was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the appellant, Lees, contested the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to proceed with a claim for permanent impairment under section 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The primary issue was whether the AAT had the jurisdiction to determine the claim for permanent impairment in the context of the administrative review process outlined by the Act.
The court had to decide whether the AAT possessed the legal authority to hear and adjudicate upon the claim for permanent impairment as posited by the second respondent, Comcare. This involved a thorough examination of the statutory framework, specifically the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, and the inherent powers of the AAT as delineated by the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. The court needed to ascertain whether the AAT's jurisdiction extended to encompass claims for permanent impairment or if such claims were beyond its statutory remit.
The court ultimately concluded that the AAT did not have the jurisdiction to determine the claim for permanent impairment as asserted by Comcare. The reasoning was grounded in the specific language and scope of the statutory provisions under which the AAT operates. The court found that the AAT's powers were confined to reviewing decisions made under the Act and did not include the authority to make new findings or determinations regarding permanent impairment. Consequently, the decision of the AAT to proceed with the claim was deemed to be outside its jurisdiction, leading to the setting aside of the AAT's direction and a declaration to that effect. The appeal was dismissed as a result.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The direction of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 25 November 1998 that the hearing of the matter proceed upon the basis that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine a claim for permanent impairment under s 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) be set aside.
2. It be declared that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, in the hearing of the present appeal, does not have power to determine the second respondent’s claim for permanent impairment.