Murphy, T.J. v Australian Postal Corporation - [1995] FCA 503

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal - Termination of compensation for injury at work while employed by Australia Post - Whether the applicant was afforded procedural fairness - Whether the reasons given by the Tribunal for its decision were adequate.

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act ss 33(1)(c), 43 and 44

Marelic v Comcare (1993) 121 ALR 114
NRMA Insurance Ltd v Tatt (1989) 92 ALR 299
Saliba v Comcare, unreported, 18 November 1995, Einfeld J

TREVOR JAMES MURPHY v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

No. ACT G 23 of 1994

Finn J.
14 July 1995
Canberra

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY     )
  )    No. ACT G 23 of 1994 DISTRICT REGISTRY               )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: TREVOR JAMES MURPHY

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

MINUTES OF ORDER

JUDGE MAKING ORDER : Finn J.

DATE OF ORDER : 14 July 1995

WHERE MADE : Canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed with costs.

The decision of the Tribunal be affirmed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY     )
  )    No. ACT G 23 of 1994   DISTRICT REGISTRY               )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

ON APPEAL FROM THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE
DIVISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: TREVOR JAMES MURPHY

Applicant

AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

CORAM: Finn J.

DATE: 14 July 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) dated 11 March 1994 affirming a decision of Australia Post (the respondent) made on 7 January 1993. The latter decision in turn confirmed a determination of 11 May 1992 made under the Commonwealth Employees Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) that the respondent was no longer liable to pay compensation to Trevor James Murphy (the applicant) in respect of his development of peri-arthritis (capsulitis) of the right shoulder, that condition being found not to be referable to the applicant's employment with the respondent.

The substantive issue in all three decisions, though not the issue before this Court, was the cause of the applicant's condition. He related it to an injury to his right shoulder said to have been sustained at work at the Canberra Mail Centre on 28 February 1983 when lifting a heavy parcel on to a conveyor belt with his right hand. The alternative explanation adopted in all three of the above decisions was that the condition was unrelated to the injury of that date but resulted from long term diabetes from which the applicant has suffered. A large number of medical reports from a variety of medical practitioners of varying specialisations and covering almost a decade of examinations lent support, variously, to each point of view. These reports date in the main from after 28 January 1987, the date…

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 Murphy, T.J. 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: [1995] FCA 503
Decision Date: 14 JULY 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the Court is an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) affirming a decision of Australia Post (the respondent) made on 7 January 1993. The respondent's decision in turn confirmed a determination of 11 May 1992 made under the Commonwealth Employees Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) that the respondent was no longer liable to pay compensation to Trevor James Murphy (the applicant) in respect of his development of peri-arthritis (capsulitis) of the right shoulder, that condition being found not to be referable to the applicant's employment with the respondent. The applicant had related his condition to an injury to his right shoulder said to have been sustained at work at the Canberra Mail Centre on 28 February 1983 when lifting a heavy parcel onto a conveyor belt with his right hand. The alternative explanation adopted in all three of the above decisions was that the condition was unrelated to the injury of that date but resulted from long term diabetes from which the applicant had suffered. The applicant appealed to the Court on two grounds: first, that the Tribunal failed to express findings and reasons for its decision which were adequate for the purpose of enabling a proper understanding of the basis upon which the decision was reached; and second, that the Tribunal in its several inquiries of witnesses including medical witnesses, the applicant and the applicant's brother, denied the applicant procedural fairness in that it failed to indicate to the applicant or at all the inferences it was minded to make as the result of the questions it put and the answers given. The Court found that the applicant had not made out either ground of appeal. The appeal was dismissed with costs and the decision of the Tribunal was affirmed.

Orders