Martin and Comcare

This matter concerned an interlocutory application before Deputy J W Constance P of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, arising from a claim by Ms Martin against Comcare. The dispute centred on the extent to which the parties should be permitted to adduce further evidence at a re-hearing before the Tribunal, following multiple appeals to the Federal Court and the High Court. Ms Martin contended for broad admissibility of relevant evidence, while Comcare argued for a restriction to the evidence presented at the initial 2014 hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine the scope of evidence permissible on remittal. This required consideration of whether the Tribunal had the power to re-decide the matter without further evidence, and whether, in light of the principles of procedural fairness and the statutory requirement to provide parties a reasonable opportunity to present their case, further evidence should be admitted. The Tribunal also had to interpret the High Court's remittal order, which directed the matter to be "heard and determined according to law" without specific limitations on evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that while it possessed the power to decide the matter without further evidence, this power must be exercised in accordance with procedural fairness and section 39 of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* (Cth), which mandates a reasonable opportunity for parties to present their case. The Tribunal noted that the High Court's remittal order, which restored an earlier Federal Court order for the matter to be "heard and determined according to law," did not impose limitations on the evidence. Furthermore, the High Court's acknowledgement that Ms Martin would not be constrained by prior factual findings suggested that fresh evidence could be adduced. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to permit the parties to provide further evidence, setting a timetable for its filing and service.