Natalie Elizabeth Waters v Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Taxation Office)

NATALIE ELIZABETH WATERS
v
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA (AUSTRALIAN TAXATION OFFICE)
[2013] HCASL 172
S33/2013

The applicant commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of New South Wales against the Commonwealth seeking damages for psychiatric injury she alleged had occurred in the course of her employment in the Australian Taxation Office.
The Commonwealth sought orders dismissing the applicant's claims, alleging that her claims were barred by operation of ss 44 and 45 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act"), and, further, that her pleading disclosed no arguable cause of action. The Commonwealth alleged that the claim was barred because the applicant had elected not to pursue any common law remedy by accepting statutory compensation.
The primary judge (Barr AJ) concluded that the applicant's claim was barred by operation of those provisions of the Act on which the Commonwealth relied and further held that the applicant's pleading was irremediably deficient.
The applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That Court (McColl and Basten JJA) dismissed the application, holding that the applicant's claim was barred by the Act.
The applicant alleges that the Court of Appeal should not have decided whether she was barred from pursuing her claim against the Commonwealth but should have decided only whether she should have leave to appeal.
We see no reason to doubt that it was open to the Court of Appeal to determine the question of bar and we see no reason to doubt the conclusion which the Court of Appeal reached on that question. An appeal to this Court would, therefore, enjoy insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.
Pursuant to r 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

K.M. Hayne
9 October 2013 S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Natalie Elizabeth Waters, brought an action against the Commonwealth of Australia, represented by the Australian Taxation Office, in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking damages for psychiatric injury she alleged had occurred during her employment. The Commonwealth moved to dismiss the applicant's claims on the basis that they were barred by sections 44 and 45 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and that the pleading disclosed no arguable cause of action. The Commonwealth contended that the applicant's acceptance of statutory compensation barred her from pursuing a common law claim. The primary judge, Barr AJ, agreed with the Commonwealth and dismissed the applicant's claims. The applicant then sought leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was also dismissed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's claim was barred by sections 44 and 45 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The applicant argued that the Court of Appeal should not have decided whether her claim was barred but should have decided only whether she should have leave to appeal. However, the court found that it was open to the Court of Appeal to determine the question of bar and that the Court of Appeal's conclusion on the matter was correct. The court also found that an appeal to the High Court would not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.

The court's reasoning was based on the provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 and the applicant's acceptance of statutory compensation. The court found that the applicant's claim was barred by operation of sections 44 and 45 of the Act because she had elected not to pursue any common law remedy by accepting statutory compensation. The court also found that the applicant's pleading was irremediably deficient. The court held that the Court of Appeal was entitled to decide the question of bar and that its conclusion on the matter was correct.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal. Pursuant to rule 41.11.1 of the High Court Rules 2004, the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established