Myers and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered whether it had jurisdiction to review a decision made by the Australian Postal Corporation concerning a compensation claim lodged by Ms Myers. Ms Myers had lodged an incident form and a claim for rehabilitation and compensation in October 2011, alleging she suffered depression and anxiety due to workplace bullying. Australia Post initially denied liability for her claimed injury by letter dated 13 January 2012, a decision which was affirmed upon reconsideration on 21 February 2012. Despite being outside the usual time limits, Ms Myers' solicitors requested Australia Post reconsider the matter or consent to referring it to the Tribunal. Australia Post declined to overturn its previous decision on 15 February 2013, suggesting an application for an extension of time to the Tribunal. Ms Myers subsequently provided further details of alleged bullying, which she claimed caused her post-traumatic stress syndrome, after her retirement on grounds of incapacity.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to entertain Ms Myers' application for review. Australia Post argued that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because Ms Myers had not complied with section 54 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act), and that any attempt to seek a review of the reconsideration decision without complying with section 29(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) was impermissible. Furthermore, Australia Post contended that a purported reconsideration decision dated 16 February 2016 was a nullity as the claim had already been determined and reconsidered.

The Tribunal, applying principles established in *Collector of Customs (NSW) v Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd*, found that it did have jurisdiction. The Tribunal reasoned that the critical requirement for its jurisdiction was the existence of a "reviewable decision," which in turn necessitated a "determination" under section 61 of the SRC Act. The Tribunal noted that the decision-maker on 16 February 2016 had clearly stated they were exercising the power to reconsider the determination under subsection 62(1) of the Act. Australia Post had not declined to reconsider the matter, but instead exercised this power, thereby making a reviewable decision. The Tribunal held that neither the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act nor the SRC Act required a valid decision to exist before it could exercise its power of review, nor did it require the applicant to have met all statutory requirements, such as providing appropriate notice of injury, prior to seeking review. The Tribunal concluded that the necessary elements of a decision having been made and purporting to be under an enactment were met, granting it jurisdiction to determine the legal questions raised.

The Tribunal ordered that it had jurisdiction to review the decision made by Australia Post on 16 February 2016. The Tribunal also noted that issues relating to compliance with section 54 and other sections of the SRC Act could still be raised and would be determined in the normal way should the matter proceed to a final hearing.