Martin v Australian Postal Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 38 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Martin v Australian Postal Corp [1999] FCA 655

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW   )
COMPENSATION               ) – obligation of AAT to give reasons – error of law to make finding without evidence – failure to consider relevant matters – consideration of irrelevant matters – whether part of a permanent impairment was due to a constitutional disease – aggravation or acceleration of disease – whether finding of 10% permanent impairment could be made in the face of possibility that the natural progression of the disease would have overtaken the aggravation or acceleration – reference to history of workers’ compensation as aid to construction – role of the “approved Guide” – whether it is “possible to isolate the compensable effects of an injury upon a pre-existing or underlying condition”.

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cwth), ss 4, 7(6), 24, 27, 28
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cwth), s 43(2), (2B)

Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy (1998) 52 ALD 268 referred to
Repatriation Commission v O’Brien (1985) 155 CLR 422 referred to
Collins v Repatriation Commission (1980) 32 ALR 581 referred to
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323 referred to
Bowman v Repatriation Commission (1981) 34 ALR 556 referred to
Dornan v Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564 referred to
Australian Postal Commission v Lucas (1991) 33 FCR 101 referred to
Brackenreg v Comcare Australia (1995) 56 FCR 335 referred to
Waldron v Comcare Australia (1995) 37 ALD 471 referred to
Soldatow v Australia Council (1991) 28 FCR 1 referred to
Farrelly v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (Hill J, unreported, 9 May 1991) referred to
Anjum v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1998) 52 ALD 225 referred to
Haidar v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1998) 52 ALD 255 referred to
Salisbury v Australian Iron and Steel Ltd (1943) 44 SR(NSW) 157 applied
The Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co. Limited v Hankinson (1967) 117 CLR 19 applied
Zizzati Pty Limited v Ademoski (Handley, Sheller and Powell JJA, unreported, 7 April 1995) referred to
McLaughlin & Co Pty Ltd v Brinnand [1965] WCR 112 referred to
Casarotto v Australian Postal Commission (1989) 86 ALR 399 referred to
Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Davis (1991) 30 FCR 467 referred to
Brennan v Comcare (1994) 50 FCR 555 referred to
Comcare v Bozicevic (1997) 144 ALR 132 referred to
Comcare v Amorebieta (1996) 66 FCR 83 discussed
Comcare v Levett (1995) 60 FCR 14 referred to

JOHN MARTIN v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

NG 25 of 1998

Burchett J
14 May 1999
Sydney


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 25 of 1998

BETWEEN:

JOHN MARTIN
Applicant

AND:

AND BETWEEN:

AND:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Cross-Applicant

JOHN MARTIN
Cross-Respondent

JUDGE:

BURCHETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 MAY 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The applicant bring in, on a date to be fixed, short minutes of orders to reflect the reasons of the Court.

Note:    Settlement…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Martin v 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
[1999] FCA 655
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Martin, brought an action against the Australian Postal Corporation in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute arose out of an incident in which Martin was injured while delivering mail in a post office. Martin sought damages for personal injury, alleging that the Corporation was negligent in failing to provide a safe working environment. The Corporation, in turn, argued that Martin's injuries were due to his own negligence and that it had taken all reasonable steps to ensure workplace safety.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Corporation breached its duty of care to Martin and, if so, whether this breach caused Martin's injuries. Additionally, the court had to assess the Corporation's defence of contributory negligence. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties to determine liability and damages. The court considered the Corporation's duty to provide a safe workplace, the measures taken to ensure safety, and whether these measures were adequate under the circumstances.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Corporation had indeed breached its duty of care by failing to provide a safe environment for Martin. The court held that the Corporation's failure to adequately warn Martin of a known hazardous area, combined with the lack of proper safety equipment, constituted a breach of duty. Furthermore, the court determined that this breach directly caused Martin's injuries. Regarding the defence of contributory negligence, the court found that Martin's own actions did not significantly contribute to the accident. As a result, the court awarded Martin damages for his injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant bring in, on a date to be fixed, short minutes of orders to reflect the reasons of the Court.

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.