FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McGuire v Comcare [2004] FCA 848
COMPENSATION – claim for permanent impairment – cervical spine – tribunal not in error of law in concluding no claim for lump sum compensation available – tribunal not in error of law in conclusion of fact that permanent impairment arose well prior to 1 December 1988
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44
Commonwealth Employees’ Compensation Act 1930 (Cth) ss 12, 19(1),
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) s 39
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s 78(1)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 24, 64, 124(3)Australian Competition & Consumer Commission v CG Berbatis Holdings Pty Ltd (1999) 95 FCR 292 applied
Department of Defence v West (1998) 85 FCR 491 followed
McGuire v Comcare [2002] AATA 268 affirmed
Naraim v Parnell (1986) 9 FCR 479 referred to
Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 cited
Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 54 referred toALEXANDER KYLE McGUIRE v COMCARE (DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE)
W141 of 2002RD NICHOLSON J
2 JULY 2004
PERTH
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
W141 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDER KYLE McGUIRE
APPLICANTAND:
COMCARE (DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE)
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
RD NICHOLSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
2 JULY 2004
WHERE MADE:
PERTH
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application by way of appeal be dismissed.
2.The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
W141 OF 2002
BETWEEN:
ALEXANDER KYLE McGUIRE
APPLICANTAND:
COMCARE (DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE)
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
RD NICHOLSON J
DATE:
2 JULY 2004
PLACE:
PERTH
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This is an ‘appeal’ from a decision of a senior member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Mr BH Pascoe) (‘the Tribunal’) given on 18 April 2002 (McGuire v Comcare [2002] AATA 268). In that decision the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review. The decision was that of the respondent dated 15 May 2001 which affirmed a determination made on 31 March 2000 that the applicant was not entitled to a lump sum payment for permanent impairment to his neck and cervical spine. The ‘appeal’ is brought pursuant to the provisions of s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) and s 64 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).
The injury in relation to which the applicant’s claim for permanent impairment was brought occurred in 1951. The Tribunal described the circumstances in which it occurred as follows (and this description is not in issue as to its content):
‘Mr McGuire enlisted in the Australian Army in London on 31 July 1951 and was discharged in West Australia on 30 July 1957. He said that, in September 1951, he was involved in swimming training. Three soldiers had remained behind in the hut. On return from swimming, Mr McGuire said that he realised someone had opened…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read McGuire v Comcare 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] FCA 848
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining the legal scope of Comcare’s authority to make such decisions and whether the applicant's grounds for appeal were valid. Specifically, the court examined whether the decision-making process adhered to the statutory requirements and whether there were any errors of law or procedural unfairness. The court also considered the specific arguments raised by the applicant concerning the interpretation of relevant provisions in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.
In its decision, the court found that Comcare had correctly exercised its authority and that the decision-making process was in line with the statutory provisions. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any errors of law or procedural unfairness that would warrant an appeal. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The application by way of appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application
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.