Martin v Australian Postal Corporation

The second appeal in Martin v Australian Postal Corporation concerns the determination of Mr Martin's incapacity claim by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). Mr Martin contends that the Tribunal erred in its findings regarding his capacity to work and the period of total incapacity. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal correctly interpreted the evidence and applied the relevant provisions of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in determining Mr Martin's capacity to work and the period of total incapacity.

The court examined the conflicting medical opinions presented by Professor Murrell and Dr Brooks, and the Tribunal's resolution of these differences. The Tribunal found that Mr Martin was fit to engage in full-time employment with certain restrictions, but did not seriously seek employment. The Tribunal also found total incapacity during the period of hospitalisation and recuperation in 1997. Mr Martin's counsel argued that the Tribunal's findings amounted to a finding of partial incapacity, citing two cases. The court considered the statutory definitions and the evidence presented, and found that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the evidence and applied the law in making its findings.

The court concluded that the Tribunal had not erred in its findings regarding Mr Martin's capacity to work and the period of total incapacity. The court set aside part of the Tribunal's decision and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for further hearing and determination according to law. The court also ordered the respondent, Australian Postal Corporation, to pay the applicant's costs.