Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 469
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No Q2003/750
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re DAVID O'CONNOR Applicant
And
COMCARE
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Mr SC Fisher, Member Date25 May 2005
PlaceBrisbane
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
...................[Sgd].......................
SC Fisher
Member
CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – Injury – unspecified adjustment disorder – applicant suffers from a diagnosed injury or disease – uncontradicted medical evidence – applicant claims injury arose out of stress due to the mismanaged salary packaging of a motor vehicle – methods of remuneration too remote from the conditions under which an employee does his or her work – injury sustained did not arise out of the course of employment – applicant also falls into ‘benefit’ exception – salary packaging is a method of remuneration that gives tax-effective benefits to employees – decision under review affirmed.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4,6,7,14
Workers' Compensation Act 1926 -- 1960 (NSW)
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971Secretary, Department of Social Security v Murphy Federal Court, 29 June 1998, 908/98; (1998) 52 ALD
Ajka Pty Ltd v Australian Fisheries Management Authority [2003] FCA 248; (2003) 74 ALD 21
Bantick and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2003] AATA 472
Bramwell v Repatriation Commission (1998) 51 ALD 56
Collins v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 36 ALR 598; (1981) 4 ALD 198
Kunz v FCT (1996) 41 ALD 533
Pochi and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 33
Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439; (1996) 42 ALD 495
Federal Broom Company Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Westgate v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1987) 17 FCR 235; (1987) 14 ALD 367
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 97 ALR 321; (1990) 26 FCR 316
Hawkins v Comcare [2001] FCA 726
Wiegand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464; (2002) 72 ALD 795
Trewin v Comcare (1998) 84 FCR 171
Robertson and Comcare [2002] AATA 96; (2002) 67 ALD 160
Comcare v Nichols [1999] FCA 209
Lees v Comcare (1999) 29 AAR 350; (1999) 56 ALD 84,MacArthur and Comcare [2003] AATA 1139
National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Ltd v Campbell [2000] FCA 852
Williams v Muller [2003] FCA 1190
Suters v Australian Postal Corporation (1992) 28 ALD 320
TSC Industries Inc v Northway Inc 426 US 438
Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383
Nader v Urban Transit Authority (New South Wales) (1985) 2 NSWLR 501
Golds v Comcare [1999] FCA 1481Telstra Corporation Limited v Treloar [2000] FCA 1170
REASONS FOR DECISION
25 May 2005 Mr SC Fisher, Member Introduction and Background
1. Mr David James Cecil O'Connor (the Applicant) is an employee of the Australian Taxation Office. By a compensation claim form dated 6 February 2003, the applicant claimed compensation from Comcare (the Respondent) in respect of "depression aggravated by unresolved financial dispute at work". The applicant said…
Continue reading O'Connor and Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- O'Connor and Comcare [2005] AATA 469
- Case
- [2005] AATA 469
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether the injury was sufficiently connected to the employment conditions to be compensable. The Federal Circuit Court found that the mismanaged salary packaging was a method of remuneration and, therefore, too remote from the conditions of the employment to be considered an injury arising out of the employment. The court also determined that the injury fell within the 'benefit' exception, as salary packaging is a form of remuneration that offers tax-effective benefits to employees. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision under review, finding that the applicant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of their employment.
The orders of the court were that the decision under review be affirmed, meaning that the applicant's claim for workers' compensation was dismissed. The applicant was not entitled to compensation for the injury claimed to have arisen from the mismanaged salary packaging of a motor vehicle.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Full text does not contain this section.