FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Nikolovski v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2002] FCA 846
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – where the Tribunal affirmed five decisions made pursuant to the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – whether the Tribunal failed to set out its findings on material questions of fact and to refer to evidence or other materials on which those findings were based – where the Tribunal’s reasons contained no direct or discrete discussion of one of the decisions under appeal – whether the matter should be remitted for rehearing to the Tribunal differently constituted or to the same Tribunal.
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 43(2B)
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)Brackenreg v Comcare Australia (1995) FCR 335 referred to
Carroll v Australian Jockey Club (1999) 19 NSWCCR 164 referred to
Comcare Australia v Hill (1999) 56 ALD 487 referred to
Industry Research and Development Board v IMT Ltd (2001) 46 ATR 275 referred toNIKOLOVSKI v TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
N 1553 of 2001
MOORE J
5 JULY 2002
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1553 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
CANE NIKOLOVSKI
APPLICANTAND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE OF ORDER:
5 JULY 2002
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in matter N 2000/1929 to affirm the decision dated 19 December 2000 that affirmed a determination dated 29 September 2000 be set aside.
2.The Tribunal, differently constituted, rehear the application for review concerning the decision referred to in order 1.
3. The appeal otherwise be dismissed.
4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 1553 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN:
CANE NIKOLOVSKI
APPLICANTAND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD
RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
MOORE J
DATE:
5 JULY 2002
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Introduction
This is an appeal by Mr Cane Nikolovski (“the applicant”) from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) dated 25 October 2001 made pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the Act”). In its decision the Tribunal affirmed five decisions made pursuant to the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Compensation Act").
The decisions which were the subject of the appeal to the Tribunal were described in its reasons:
“(i)Matter N2000/1097 which sought review of a ‘reviewable decision’ dated 3 July 2000 which affirmed a prior decision dated 28 March 2000 that the Applicant was not entitled to any award for permanent impairment caused by the condition described as ‘recurrence of thoraco lumbar strain’.
(ii)Matter N2000/1701 which sought review of a ‘reviewable decision’ dated 24 October 2000 which decision affirmed a prior determination dated 1 June 2000…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Nikolovski v Telstra Corporation Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2002] FCA 846
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the AAT's approach to the statutory provisions and the evidence presented. It found that the AAT had failed to adequately consider the impact of Mr Nikolovski's injuries on his ability to perform his duties and the extent to which those injuries were work-related. The court held that the AAT did not appropriately weigh the evidence and misapplied the statutory criteria in affirming Telstra's decisions. Consequently, the court set aside the AAT's decision in matter N 2000/1929, which affirmed Telstra's decision to cease liability for compensation for thoracic and lumbar spine pain. The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the AAT, differently constituted, for rehearing, while dismissing the other appeals and ordering Telstra to pay Mr Nikolovski’s costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in matter N 2000/1929 to affirm the decision dated 19 December 2000 that affirmed a determination dated 29 September 2000 be set aside.
2. The Tribunal, differently constituted, rehear the application for review concerning the decision referred to in order 1.
3. The appeal otherwise be dismissed.
4. The respondent pay the applicant’s costs.
Background
Background to the litigation
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
Established by: MOORE J
Full text does not contain this section.