O'Brien and Australian Postal Corporation

[2002] AATA 148

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2002] AATA 148

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2002/180

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE  DIVISION       )          
           Re      DENISE MAREE O'BRIEN          
  Applicant
           And    AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION        
  Respondent

DIRECTION

Tribunal       Mr. D.W. Muller, Senior Member

Date6 March 2002            

PlaceBrisbane

Direction      The Tribunal directs that: 1. There has been no reviewable decision made by the respondent within the meaning of that term in sections 63 and 64 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988; 2.  Consequently, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review this matter; 3.  The application is dismissed. 
  .............(Signed).........................
  D.W. MULLER
  SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS
 COMPENSATION – no reviewable decision – no jurisdiction
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988: s.63, 64

REASONS FOR DIRECTION

Mr. D.W. Muller, Senior Member             

1. The applicant, Denise Maree O'Brien, has claimed compensation pursuant to the provisions of section 17 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The claim was made by a letter from her solicitor to the respondent on 29 November 2001.

2. The applicant's claim was supported by an affidavit provided to the respondent on 9 January 2002.

3. On 25 January 2002, the respondent sought from the applicant's solicitors various documents, including a request for a signed medical authority to allow the respondent to seek information from treating doctors and specialists consulted by the applicant's late husband.

4. Throughout February 2002, a series of letters went back and forth between the respondent and the applicant's solicitors concerning the material sought by the respondent and the material that the applicant's solicitors were prepared to provide.

5. The dispute is said by the applicant's solicitors to depend on the construction of s.58 of the Act, which relates to the power of the respondent to request the provision of information.

6. Mr. Hodgson, for the applicant submitted that one of the respondent's letters amounts to a refusal to deal with the application and a further letter of the respondent amounts to a reconsideration and determination that the refusal has been affirmed.  That is, that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to review the application.

7. I am not satisfied that the said letters of the respondent amount to a decision to refuse the application nor to refuse to deal with the application.  The correspondence merely shows that there have been some, as yet, unresolved matters relating to the gathering of information so that a decision can be made on the merits of the application.

8. No decision on the claim has been made by the respondent.  Certainly no reconsideration has been undertaken.

9. There is no reviewable decision within the meaning of that term in sections 63 and 64 of the Act.

10. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review this application.

11. The application is dismissed.

    I certify that the 11 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr. D.W. Muller, Senior Member

    Signed:         .....................................................................................
               B. Hitchcock Personal Assistant

    Date/s of Hearing  6 March 2002
    Date of Decision  6 March 2002
    Solicitor for the Applicant         Mr. R. Hodgson
    Solicitor for the Respondent    Ms. K. Bradford