Moon and Telstra Corporation Limited - [2006] AATA 996

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 996
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No A2006/42

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re DIANNE MOON

Applicant

And

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal J.W. Constance, Senior Member
Date 23 November 2006
Place Canberra

Decision
1) The decision made 24 October 2006 that Telstra Corporation Limited is liable to pay compensation to Ms Moon for incapacity for the period from 19 October 2002 to 13 May 2003 pursuant to section 21 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (1988) is set aside.

2) In substitution for the decision referred to in the preceding paragraph it is decided that Telstra Corporation Limited is liable to pay compensation to Ms Moon for incapacity for the period from 19 October 2002 to 13 May 2003 pursuant to section 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (1988).

3) Each party has liberty to apply for further directions in relation to the costs of these proceedings within 21 days of the date of this decision but should no such application be made Telstra Corporation Limited shall pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by Ms Moon.

..............................................
J.W. Constance, Senior Member

7.      Ms Moon gave evidence that she worked on a different floor because she was unable to work with her previous supervisor, Mr Cutting, whose conduct had caused her to become ill. For the same reason, when she returned to work after her illness, she was not subject to the supervision of Mr Cutting. Ms Moon said that she did not take calls from technicians because the area in which she worked did not have the equipment to allow this. Ms Carter, a fellow employee of Ms Moon, gave evidence which confirmed the nature of Ms Moon's work as a Cable Assigner, except that Ms Carter said that the reason she and Ms Moon could not accept calls from technicians was that Mr Cutting supervised these calls and management would not permit contact between Mr Cutting and Ms Moon and herself. I accept both Ms Moon and Ms Carter as honest witnesses although one of them may be mistaken on the question of the calls from technicians. However, I am satisfied, as at 18 October 2002 Ms Moon's duties did not involve the taking of calls from technicians. The reason she was not doing so is not relevant in these proceedings.
8.      In a report of 6 July 2002, Dr Kelly, Ms Moon's general practitioner, expressed the opinion that “it is unlikely Ms Moon will ever be able to work in the same area as her previous ‘boss’".[1] On 10 September 2002, Dr Knox, Consultant Psychiatrist, reported that Ms Moon “should not return to work under the direction of Mr Cutting. I would expect her to however recover her health and be able to work satisfactorily for Telstra, or another organisation, in other duties." [2]
[1] Exhibit A1, p. 122.
[2] Exhibit A1, p. 135.
9.      In November 2002 Ms Moon received a lump…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Moon and Telstra Corporation Limited 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: [2006] AATA 996
Decision Date: 23 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Moon v Telstra Corporation Limited, the applicant sought compensation for incapacity for work from her employer, Telstra. The dispute centred on whether the applicant was incapacitated for work at the time of her retirement and the applicable rate of compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The matter was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which initially found in favour of the applicant and awarded compensation under section 21 of the Act. Telstra sought judicial review of that decision in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Tribunal had correctly determined the applicable section of the Act under which compensation should be paid. The court considered whether the applicant was incapacitated for work at the time of her retirement and if the Tribunal had previously dealt with the issue in dispute. The court also examined whether the compensation should be determined pursuant to section 19 or 21 of the Act.

The court found that the Tribunal had incorrectly applied section 21 of the Act, when it should have applied section 19. The court held that the Tribunal had not considered all the relevant evidence in determining whether the applicant was incapacitated for work at the time of her retirement. The court set aside the decision of the Tribunal and substituted a decision that Telstra was liable to pay compensation to the applicant for incapacity under section 19 of the Act. The court also ordered that Telstra pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by the applicant, unless further directions were sought by either party.

The court's decision clarified the applicable section of the Act under which compensation should be paid in cases of incapacity for work at the time of retirement. The decision also highlighted the importance of considering all relevant evidence when determining whether an employee is incapacitated for work. The outcome of the case may have implications for other employees seeking compensation for incapacity for work at the time of retirement.

Orders

Orders of the court

1) The decision made 24 October 2006 that Telstra Corporation Limited is liable to pay compensation to Ms Moon for incapacity for the period from 19 October 2002 to 13 May 2003 pursuant to section 21 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (1988) is set aside.

2) In substitution for the decision referred to in the preceding paragraph it is decided that Telstra Corporation Limited is liable to pay compensation to Ms Moon for incapacity for the period from 19 October 2002 to 13 May 2003 pursuant to section 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (1988).

3) Each party has liberty to apply for further directions in relation to the costs of these proceedings within 21 days of the date of this decision but should no such application be made Telstra Corporation Limited shall pay the costs of the proceedings incurred by Ms Moon.

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.