Melotte and Department of Fisheries Management Australia Pty Ltd (Practice and procedure)
[2024] ARTA 287
•7 November 2024
Melotte and Department of Fisheries Management Australia Pty Ltd (Practice and procedure) [2024] ARTA 287 (7 November 2024)
Applicant/s: Craig Melotte
Respondent: Department of Fisheries Management Australia Pty Ltd
Tribunal Number: 2024/2754
Tribunal:General Member Gallagher
Place:Perth
Date:7 November 2024
Decision:The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s application dated 1 May 2024, being application number 2024/2754.
................[SGD]...............
General Member Gallagher
CATCHWORDS
JURISDICTION – jurisdiction of the Administrative Review Tribunal to review a claim under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) – deemed decision of the Respondent after 60 days – the Tribunal has jurisdiction
LEGISLATION
Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) ss 66, 67, 73(2), 73(2)(b), 72(2)(c), 73(6), 78(2), 79, 79(1)(b), 79(3), 83(A)(1), 83A(10), 88
Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth)
CASES
Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753 (7 June 1999)
Statement of Reasons
THE APPLICATION
The Respondent has an accepted claim under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) (the Act) for a right shoulder/bursitis injury allegedly sustained on 21 June 2022 (the shoulder injury).
The Applicant is in receipt of weekly compensation payments for the shoulder injury. The Respondent has also funded psychological treatment on a without prejudice basis for up to two years and is currently funding multi-disciplinary pain management for the Applicant.
The present matter relates to a compensation claim pursuant to the Act made by the Applicant for secondary psychological injury allegedly sustained on 21 June 2022.
ISSUE FOR REVIEW
The issue for review is whether the Tribunal[1] has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s application.
[1] At the time of the Applicant’s application, the Tribunal was known as the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. On 14 October 2024, a new federal administrative body called the Administrative Review Tribunal commenced, replacing the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has ceased operations, with all current matters now transferred to the Administrative Review Tribunal. References to ‘the Tribunal’ in this decision refer to whichever of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal or the Administrative Review Tribunal was in operation at the relevant time.
Briefly, the Respondent’s position is that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s application, as at the time the application was made, the Respondent was still investigating the claim in order to make a determination of liability by awaiting a medical report.[2]
[2] R3, [33].
The Applicant, however, maintains that the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s application, the Respondent having been deemed to have made a decision denying the Applicant’s claim.[3]
[3] A1, [5].
BACKGROUND
On 20 December 2023, the Applicant completed a claim for Seafarers’ workers’ compensation for psychological injury.[4] On 25 January 2024, the Applicant lodged this claim form with the Respondent, under cover letter which read, in part:[5]
Please confirm that liability…is accepted within 12 days, failing which the claim will be deemed denied.
[4] R4, pp 27 to 31.
[5] R4, p 38.
On 29 January 2024, the Respondent’s solicitor wrote to the Applicant, conveying the Respondent’s instructions that it intended to investigate the claim for compensation and defer its determination of liability until such time as it has received the information and/or documentation in order to enable it to make a proper and fully informed decision pursuant to the Act.[6]
[6] R4, p 39.
The letter dated 29 January 2004 also gave the Applicant written notice, pursuant to s 67 of the Act, to provide:[7]
(a)a list of all the Applicant’s treating practitioners and specialists for the last five years in relation to his psychological injuries;
(b)a list of all health services attended by the Applicant for the last five years in relation to alleged psychological injuries;
(c)signed authorities to obtain a complete copy of the Applicant’s medical records from all treating practitioners, specialists and health services for the last five years; and
(d)a Medicare statement for the last three years,
stating that once these documents have been received, the Respondent may arrange for the Applicant to be examined by an independent medical examiner pursuant to s 66 of the Act.
[7] R4, p 39.
On 15 February 2024, the Applicant emailed the Respondent the following documents:[8]
(a)The Applicant’s signed consent authority listing all health services attended in relation to the Applicant’s psychological injury (being Wyndham House Clinic and Positive Psychology Centre), and authorising the Respondent to obtain a complete copy of his medical records from these health services from 1 January 2019 to date; and
(b)The Applicant’s Medicare online history statement for the past three years, being for the period of 5 February 2021 to 5 February 2024.
[8] A1, [3], R2 and R3, [9].
The Tribunal understands that on 20 February 2024, the Respondent requested the Applicant’s medical records, with the consent authority dated 15 February 2024, from Wyndham House Clinic and Positive Psychology.[9]
[9] The letter of request to Positive Psychology is at R4, p 47. The Tribunal does not have a copy of the Respondent’s letter of request to Wyndham House Clinic.
On 20 February 2024, the Respondent also notified the Applicant that following a review of the Applicant’s Medicare history statement, the Respondent required a signed consent authority to obtain medical records from Family Doctors Highton, Health Dew Medical Centre, Seymour Medical Clinic, Barwon Medical Imaging and Vision Radiology.[10]
[10] R4, p 34 (duplicated at p 48).
The Tribunal understands that on 22 February 2024, the Respondent served a number of medical documents on the Applicant.[11]
[11] R3, [12]. The Tribunal does not have a copy of the documents evidencing service.
On 28 February 2024, the Applicant provided the Respondent with a consent authority of the same date to obtain medical records from Family Doctors Highton, Health Dew Medical Centre and Seymour Medical Clinic.[12]
[12] R4, p 45. Barwon Medical Imaging and Vision Radiology were removed as they were not relevant to a psychological claim. See R4, pp 35 and 36.
On 28 February 2024, the Applicant emailed the Respondent as follows:[13]
Thank you for confirming receipt of the consent authority.
I note that the information requested in your letter dated 29 January 2024 was provided on 15 February 2024. It has been over 12 days since the information was provided and as such the claim is now deemed denied pursuant to section 73(6).
We request a reconsideration of the deemed denial on the basis that our client’s psychological injury is a result of the workplace accident of 21 June 2022 for which liability is accepted.
[13] R4, p 49.
The Respondent states that on 1 March 2024, it corresponded with the Applicant and communicated that:[14]
[14] R2; R3, [16].
(a)The Respondent did not agree that the claim was deemed declined.
(b)In the Respondent’s correspondence dated 29 January 2024, the Respondent requested:
(i)Details of all practitioners;
(ii)A Medicare Statement; and
(iii)Signed authorities to obtain medical records.
(c)Within the same correspondence, dated 29 January 2024, the Respondent advised that upon receipt of this information/documentation, the Respondent may arrange for the Applicant to attend an independent medical examination regarding his physiological injuries.
(d)The Respondent had deferred its determination on liability until such time as the Respondent could make a proper and full informed decision.
(e)The Respondent has received the Applicant’s full authority to request medical records on 15 February 2024 and was in the process of requesting medical records and would then be arranging a medical review.
(f)The Respondent did not consider that the 12-day period had begun and that it would endeavour to provide the Applicant with a determination of liability 12 days following receipt of the information and documentation.
On 1 March 2024, the Applicant asserted that:[15]
“The request in your letter dated 29 January 2024 was complied with on 15 February 2024. Per section 73(2)(b) of the Act, the 12-day time limit to determine the claim therefore started on 15 February 2024, with the claim being deemed declined on 27 February 2024.
A request for a second consent authority was made on 20 February 2024, however this request did not reference section 67 of the Act and therefore has no bearing on the time limit to determine liability.
The fact that your offices are still in the process of obtaining medical records and medical review is irrelevant to the time limit for determining the claim.
[15] R2; R3, [17].
On 5 March 2024, the Respondent request the Applicant’s medical records, with the consent authority, from Family Doctors Highton, Health Dew Medical Centre and Seymour Medical Clinic.[16]
[16] R4, pp 50 to 55.
On 19 March 2024, the Respondent received medical records from Family Doctors Highton.[17] On 22 March 2024, Seymour Medical Clinic advised the Respondent that the Applicant was not a patient there.[18] The Tribunal understands Health Dew Medical Centre also advised the Respondent that the Applicant was not a patient there.[19]
[17] R4, p 56.
[18] R4, p 57.
[19] R3, [19]. The Tribunal does not have a copy of this correspondence.
On 5 April 2024, the Respondent submitted an online request to medEbridge for the Applicant to undergo an Independent Medical Examination (IME) by Dr Peter Farnbach, Psychiatrist.[20]
[20] R4, p 58.
On 17 April 2024, the Respondent submitted to TMS Concierge a referral letter to Dr Farnbach requesting an IME for the Applicant.[21] On 18 April 2024, a medical administrator from TMS Concierge emailed the Respondent requesting the Applicant’s details. The Respondent followed up with TMS Concierge regarding the appointment on a number of occasions.[22]
[21] R4, p 68.
[22] R4, pp 71 and 72.
On 1 May 2024, the Applicant lodged an application for review with the Tribunal.[23]
[23] R4, pp 1 to 3. This application has been assigned application number 2024/2754.
The Respondent states that on 6 May 2024:
(a)It requested from JDK Legal (the Applicant’s solicitors) details of the Applicant’s treatment for his right shoulder injury and with whom.[24]
(b)Correspondence with the Applicant’s employer (following receipt of the Applicant’s application) noted that the Applicant had been unable to provide the Tribunal with a copy of the decision they would like reviewed.[25]
[24] R3, [24]. The Tribunal does not have a copy of this correspondence.
[25] R3, [25]. The Tribunal does not have a copy of this correspondence.
On 14 May 2024, the Respondent’s solicitors advised the Tribunal and the Applicant’s solicitors that:[26]
Our client has not yet made a decision in relation to a determination of liability for the Applicants [sic] alleged psychological injury.
On 29 January 2024…[the Respondent advised the Applicant’s solicitors that] our client intended to investigate the claim for compensation and defer its determination of liability until such time as our client had received the information and/or documentation in order to enable our client to make a proper and fully informed decision pursuant to the Act.
We received the Applicant’s consent authority to request medical records on 28 February 2024 [sic] now in the process of arranging an independent medical examination.
Following the receipt of the independent medical examination report, we are instructed to provide a determination on liability.
[26] R2.
On 14 May 2024, the Respondent requested medical records, with the consent authority, from Advance Healthcare Bundoora.[27]
[27] R4, p 73.
On 24 May 2024, the Applicant’s solicitors advised the Tribunal and the Respondent’s solicitors that:[28]
I note the correspondence from the Respondent’s solicitors dated 29 January 2024, indicating that liability would be determined after the claim has been investigated. Our most significant concern is that the Respondent has never indicated when they anticipate completing their investigation. The Respondent denied paying for any further psychological treatment on 14 November 2023 (see attached correspondence), and for the past 6 months our client has been required to pay for this treatment himself. Given how much time has already passed, and noting there is a deemed decision denying liability for the Applicant’s psychological injury, we are not agreeable to providing the Respondent with any further time to consider liability. The SRC Act 1992 provides specific deadlines for an employer to determine liability and does not contemplate the employer having unlimited time to conduct investigations.
[28] R2.
According to the Respondent, on 30 May 2024 the Applicant failed to attend a medical appointment with Dr Farnbach.[29]
[29] R3, [28].
On 5 June 2024 and 6 June 2024, the Respondent requested updated medical records from Positive Psychology, Shepparton Private Hospital, Wyndham House Clinic and Goulburn Valley Physiotherapy Centre.[30] The Respondent received either records or responses that the Applicant had not attended since records were previously provided from all practices other than Wyndham House Clinic.
[30] R4, pp 74 to 77.
The Respondent says that:[31]
(a)On 11 June 2024, it was informed by Dr Farnbach’s rooms that an appointment for a review had been sent direct to the Applicant, which was their process.
(b)At this time, the Respondent was informed that the appointment was on 30 May 2024 and that the Applicant was notified of it but failed to attend.
[31] R3, [30], referring to A1, Annexure 1.
The Respondent has advised that a medical review (telehealth) with Dr Victor Cheng, Psychiatrist, was then scheduled for 23 August 2024 and the Applicant has been advised of this.[32]
[32] R3, [31], referring to A1, Annexure 1.
THE HEARING AND THE EVIDENCE
The hearing was held on 23 July 2024. The Applicant was represented by Mr Rhys Weaver of JDK Legal Services. The Respondent was represented by Ms Sue Wilkinson of Sparke Helmore Lawyers. The Applicant did not appear. The parties’ representatives attended by telephone.
The Tribunal admitted the following documents into evidence:
·Applicant’s Jurisdiction Submissions dated 25 June 2025 (Exhibit A1);
·Applicant’s Claim Form dated 20 December 2023 (Exhibit A2);
·Correspondence between JDK Legal Services and Sparke Helmore Lawyers (various dates) (Exhibit A3);
·Respondent’s Jurisdiction Submissions dated 11 June 2024 (Exhibit R1);
·Section 37 T Documents[33], being a set of documents numbered T1 to T7, filed 11 June 2024 (Exhibit R2);
·Respondent’s Amended Jurisdiction submissions dated 17 July 2024 (Exhibit R3); and
·Respondent’s Updated T Documents, being a set of documents numbered T1 to T65, filed 17 July 2024 (Exhibit R4).
[33] As they were under the Administrative Appeals Act 1975 (Cth) in force at that time.
The Tribunal is satisfied that all the relevant evidence was before the Tribunal and the parties were provided an opportunity to address it.
PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS
The Applicant’s position
The Applicant emphasised that section 88 of the Act states that an application may be made to the Tribunal[34] for a review of a reviewable decision and noted that for the Tribunal to have jurisdiction, there must be a:
(a)Valid claim;
(b)Determination; and
(c)Reconsideration.[35]
[34] Then being the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The provision now refers to the Administrative Review Tribunal.
[35] A1, [7], referring to Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753 (7 June 1999) (Lees v Comcare).
The Applicant submitted:
(a)The Applicant submitted his claim on 25 January 2024 and the Respondent does not dispute the validity of this claim.[36]
[36] A1, [8], [9].
(b)The Respondent submitted that the Applicant lodged the claim on 20 December 2023, being the date on the claim form, however, in accordance with section 63 of the Act, the claim was lodged when the Applicant gave the claim form to the Respondent on 25 January 2024.[37]
[37] A1, [11], [12].
(c)The Respondent was required to determine the Applicant’s claim after it was lodged on 25 January 2024, by the end of the period of 12 days after that date. This is because s 73(2) of the SRC Act prescribes that for claims relating to incapacity for work, loss of or damage to property or cost of medical treatment:[38]
[38] A1, [13], [14].
(2) The employee’s employer must determine its liability in relation to the claim by the latest of the following times:
(a)the end of the period of 12 days after the day on which the employer receives the claim.
(b)if the employer, by notice under section 67 given to the claimant within the period referred to in paragraph (a), requests the claimant to give information or a document or a copy of a document, or an authority to obtain information or a document or a copy of a document – the end of the period of 12 days after the employer receives the information, the document or copy of the document or the authority, as the case may be.
(c)if, at the written request of the employer, the Authority, by written notice served on the employer, allows a further period or further periods for the determination of the liability – the end of that period or those periods as the case may be.
(Emphasis added.)
(d)Section 73(6) of the Act states that if an employer does not determine the claim by the end of the period allowed by this section, “that employer is taken to have made a decision, at the end of that period, disallowing the claim.”[39]
(e)On 29 January 2024, the Respondent requested information and an authority pursuant to section 67 of the Act, and as such it was required to determine the claim by the end of the period of 12 days after it received the requested information.[40]
(f)On 15 February 2024, the Respondent received the requested information and authority.[41]
(g)The end of the period of 12 days after 15 February 2024 is 27 February 2024 and the Respondent did not issue a determination on this date.[42]
(h)The Respondent was therefore taken to have made a determination disallowing the Applicant’s claim at the end of 27 February 2024, pursuant to section 73(6) of the Act.
[39] A1, [15].
[40] A1, [16].
[41] A1, [17], as confirmed in R3, [9].
[42] A1, [18], [19].
As for the Applicant’s request for a consideration of the deemed determination pursuant to section 78(2) of the Act:[43]
(a)Pursuant to section 79 of the Act, the Respondent was required to consider the determination at the end of the period of 60 days after it received the reconsideration request.
(b)The Respondent failed to issue a reconsideration and the Applicant’s claim was deemed to be denied on 29 April 2024, pursuant to section 79(6) of the Act.
[43] See [15] above and A1 [21] to [23].
As to the Respondent’s claim that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on the basis that the Respondent is still investigating the claim by awaiting a medical report, the Applicant contended:[44]
(a)If the Respondent required more time to arrange a medical examination, it could have requested an extension of time from the Seacare Authority pursuant to sections 73(2)(c) or 79(1)(b) of the Act (and the Respondent did not do so).
(b)Similarly, had the Respondent arranged a medical examination within the 60-day reconsideration period under section 83A of the Act, the reconsideration period could have been extended by the time taken to receive the medical report, per sections 79(3) or 83A(10) of the Act (and the Respondent did not do so). Simply foreshadowing an intention to arrange a medical examination, as done by the Respondent on 29 January 2024, does not provide the Respondent with more time to consider the claim.
(c)As to the Respondent’s claim that it instructed Dr Farnbach to review the Applicant, and that the Applicant failed to attend this examination, the Respondent failed to notify the Applicant of this appointment as required by section 83A(1) of the Act. This was confirmed by the Respondent on 18 June 2024.[45] As such, the Applicant was never advised of this appointment, and it was not possible for him to attend it.
(d)The Respondent first notified the Applicant of a medical examination on 18 June 2023, which was scheduled with Dr Cheng. By this point, the 60-day reconsideration period had already lapsed, and so this appointment has no bearing on the question of jurisdiction.
[44] A1, [24] to [30].
[45] A1, Annexure 1.
As to the Respondent’s submission that there is no prejudice for the Applicant in awaiting the Respondent to determine liability,[46] the question of liability is not relevant to the issue of jurisdiction.[47]
[46] R3, [34].
[47] A1, [31].
Lastly, the Applicant submitted that the Respondent has not raised any facts that would indicate the Applicant failed to make a claim, or that a determination has not been made.[48]
[48] A1, [32].
As such, the Applicant seeks a finding that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s application dated 1 May 2024, being application number 2024/2754.[49]
[49] A1, [33].
The Respondent’s position
The Respondent’s contended that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s application because:[50]
(a)At the time the application was made, the Respondent was still investigating the claim in order to make a determination of liability by awaiting a medical report.
(b)There was no prejudice to the Applicant is awaiting the Respondent’s determination of liability, based on the medical report of a psychiatrist, as he remains in receipt of weekly compensation payments and his multi-disciplinary treatment is being funded by the Respondent.
(c)The Applicant was aware that the Respondent was investigating the claim and did intend to make a determination. This was reflected in the continual conferral and many attempts to progress the matter by requesting the Applicant’s medical records and arranging for a psychiatrist review.
(d)
When the Respondent stated, on 29 January 2024, that it intended to defer its determination of liability in accordance with section 73(2)(b) of the
Act, the intention was that a determination would be provided after the Applicant provided information/documentation in accordance with section 66 of the Act and a medical review took place.
[50] R3, [33] to [37].
The Respondent considers that application number 2024/2757 should be discontinued as the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear it.
CONSIDERATION
As noted above,[51] the issue before the Tribunal is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s application. It is settled that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review a matter if there is a valid claim, a determination and a reconsideration.
[51] See [4] above.
There is no dispute that the Applicant has a valid claim. Therefore, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the matter only if it finds there has been both a determination and a reconsideration.
The Applicant says there has been so, in the form of two deemed determinations by the Respondent, in its failure to make an express determination and reconsideration as to liability. The Respondent, however maintains that it is yet to make its initial determination, the evidence gathering process being still in progress and it intends to continue to defer its determination until such time as this process is complete. The Respondent points to no provision of the Act or any other legislation or case authority in this regard.
The Act prescribes a 12 day period for an employer to determine liability for a claim. If the employer does not determine the claim during this period, the employer is deemed to have made a determination for the claim.
The Applicant submitted that his claim was determined (having been deemed declined) on 27 February 2024,[52] the 12-day time limit to determine the claim having started on 15 February 2024, when it provided information in response to the Respondent’s letter dated 29 January 2024.[53] For reasons stated below, the Tribunal agrees.
[52] See [35(g)] and [35(h)] above.
[53] And not some other date, for example the date from when the Respondent received all the medical records produced from those requests. It matters not whether those requests were made piecemeal or from one communication. See transcript, p 11.
The Applicant then requested reconsideration and says that again the employer failed to issue a reconsideration with the prescribed 60 day timeframe and hence the employer was again deemed to have made a decision denying the claim.[54] Again, for reasons stated below, the Tribunal agrees.
[54] See [36] above.
The Respondent is essentially asking the Tribunal to accept the proposition that while the language of the Act makes clear that an employer must made a determination and a reconsideration within the required timeframes (12 days and 60 days respectively), an employer is permitted to defer these obligations to determine liability for an indeterminate period pending the outcome of its initial investigations and other related efforts to obtain evidence.
The Tribunal cannot reconcile the 12 day and 60-day time periods in the Act with a situation where an employer could potentially take months to make a determination or issue a reconsideration. Rather, the Tribunal interprets these timeframes as a legislative intention that a full and complete investigation of the claim need not occur in order and the preliminary information in existence and available during those initial periods are sufficient for the purposes of making a determination or reconsideration.
Certainly, the language of s 73(2) of the Act refers to requests for information, documents and like to the claimant, indicating the 12 day time period begins to run when the employer receives that information back from the claimant, or any other document that can be obtain within the prescribed time, not from when the employer has obtained every medical record in existence including expert reports obtained following examination or assessment that has been undertaken following the commencement of the 12-day or 60-day periods.
The Respondent is also asking the Tribunal to take into consideration the Applicant’s failure to attend his appoint with Dr Farnbach in circumstances where the Applicant was not notified of this appointment by the Applicant or Dr Farnbach’s rooms in time to attend it.
In any event, the Tribunal does not consider this to be relevant to the question of whether the Respondent was required to make its determination and reconsideration in accordance with the prescribed timeframes irrespective of:
(a)whether this, or any other evidence the Respondent was seeking to obtain, was available to it within these periods, or
(b)whether it was at liberty to defer the determination and reconsideration for a period of its choosing,
no matter how reasonable the Respondent considered the reasons for it and irrespective of its intentions to determine and/or reconsider liability when that evidence became available.
The Tribunal does not envisage a situation where the Act contemplated that an employer could, in effect, pause or otherwise extend a statutory timeframe depending on how its investigations or evidence gathering proceeded once an employee’s claim had been made. For example, whether a particular medical expert was available to provide an assessment or whether the Applicant was in possession of sufficient evidence for the employer to be satisfied it was in a position to make a determination.
Indeed, there is a lengthier time period prescribed for reconsideration where these matters can be explored further and additional evidence be obtained, including by medical assessment, if the employee is dissatisfied with the initial determination.
Further, the present matter did not involve a situation where, at the reconsideration stage, an employer could refuse to reconsider the determination when a medical report following an examination was not provided.[55] Rather, the Applicant’s medical examination never took place.
[55] See s 83A(10) of the Act.
At hearing, the Respondent emphasised the fact that it kept the Applicant informed of its progress and its attempts to obtain medical records from numerous medical practices and to confirm appointment details with Dr Farnbach (the appointment with Dr Cheng falling outside the reconsideration period in any event).
While the Tribunal acknowledges this courtesy, it considers it has no bearing on or consequence to the determination and reconsideration that were not expressly made in time. Similarly, the fact that the Applicant’s consent authorities were provided within the initial 12 day timeframe but the information requested from the relevant practices with those authorities was not yet available is not, as the Respondent says, a reason that time cannot begin to run.
Otherwise, if a medical practice to whom records were requested were non-responsive, tardy in their response or provided incomplete records, or, an employer continued to make continuous requests for authority over an extended period, there is no mechanism within the Act or elsewhere providing guidance as to when (what is actually) a clearly prescribed period would end. This would leave an employee claimant in a position where it would be unsure as to whether or when its employer has obtained all the information they needed it order to determine or reconsider a claim.
Rather, it provides clear time limits for a determination and reconsideration to be made on the information and evidence available at those times. This information and evidence may not always be as extensive at the determination or reconsideration stages as at the Tribunal application stage, where directions and orders are made to enable parties a reasonable opportunity and timeframe in which to prepare their case. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that this avenue remains available to the Applicant.
CONCLUSION
For reasons stated above the Tribunal has found that the Applicant has lodged a valid claim, in which there has been a deemed determination and deemed reconsideration. As such, in accordance with Lees v Comcare, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Applicant’s application dated 1 May 2024 (application number 2024/2754).
DECISION
The Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s application dated 1 May 2024, being application number 2024/2754.
I certify that the preceding 62 (sixty-two) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of General Member Gallagher
.................[SGD]...............................
Associate
Dated: 7 November 2024
Date of hearing: 23 July 2024 Solicitors for the Applicant: Mr Rhys Weaver, JDK Legal Services Solicitors for the Respondent: Ms Sue Wilkinson, Sparke Helmore Lawyers
0