MacDonald and Australian Postal Corporation - [2003] AATA 388

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2003] AATA 388
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A2003/7

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re SIDNEY MACDONALD

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr G A Mowbray
Date4 April 2003
PlaceCanberra

Decision
For reasons given orally the Tribunal decides it has jurisdiction to hear the application for review of the Respondent's decision of 31 December 2002.

....................(sgd)...................
Member

but does not include any such disease, injury or aggravation suffered by an employee as a result of reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee or failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment.
…”
“14 Compensation for injuries
(1) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
…”
“16 Compensation in respect of medical expenses etc.
(1) Where an employee suffers an injury, Comcare is liable to pay, in respect of the cost of medical treatment obtained in relation to the injury (being treatment that it was reasonable for the employee to obtain in the circumstances), compensation of such amount as Comcare determines is appropriate to that medical treatment.
…”
“19 Compensation for injuries resulting in incapacity
…
(2) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay to the employee in respect of the injury, for each week that is a maximum rate compensation week during which the employee is incapacitated, an amount of compensation…
…
(3) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation to the employee, in respect of the injury, for each week during which the employee is incapacitated, other than a week referred to in subsection (2),…
…”
“60 Interpretation
(1) In this Part:
“claimant” means a person in respect of whom a determination is made.
“decision” has the same meaning as in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
“determination” means a determination, decision or requirement made under section 8, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 21A, 22, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37 or 39, under paragraph 114B(5)(a) or under Division 3 of Part X.
“determining authority”, in relation to a determination, means the person who made the determination.
“reviewable decision” means a decision made under subsection 38(4) or section 62.
…”
“61 Determinations to be notified in writing
(1) As soon as practicable after a determining authority makes a determination, it shall cause to be served on the claimant a notice in writing setting out:
(a) the terms of the determination;
(b) the reasons for the determination; and
(c) a statement to the effect that the claimant may, if dissatisfied with the determination, request a reconsideration of the determination under subsection 62(2).

…”
“62 Reconsideration of determinations
…
(2) A request to a determining authority to reconsider a determination made…

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 MacDonald and 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: [2003] AATA 388
Decision Date: 4 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

MacDonald appealed a decision of the Australian Postal Corporation regarding compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The appeal was brought before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had to determine whether it had jurisdiction to review the decision and whether the decision was reviewable. The second letter from the Australian Postal Corporation was the subject of the appeal, as it contained a decision to cease liability for compensation.

The Tribunal examined whether the second letter from the Australian Postal Corporation constituted a reviewable decision. The Tribunal held that the second letter was a decision within the meaning of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 because it contained a determination that was final and operative. The Tribunal also held that the letter was a reviewable decision because it was a decision made under a Commonwealth law.

The Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to review the decision of the Australian Postal Corporation, as the decision was made under a Commonwealth law and was a reviewable decision. The Tribunal also found that the decision was not an interlocutory or procedural decision, but rather a substantive decision that was final and operative. The Tribunal held that the decision was reviewable because it was a decision that affected the legal rights and obligations of the parties.

The Tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear the application for review of the Respondent's decision of 31 December 2002. The decision of the Australian Postal Corporation to cease liability for compensation was a reviewable decision, and the Tribunal had jurisdiction to review it. The Tribunal's decision was based on the application of the relevant statutory provisions and the relevant case law.

Orders

Orders of the court

For reasons given orally the Tribunal decides it has jurisdiction to hear the application for review of the Respondent's decision of 31 December 2002.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		SIDNEY MACDONALD