Legal Research
Cases
O'Connor v COMCARE

O'Connor v COMCARE

Case [2005] FMCA 1891 20 December 2005

Appeal

Costs

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

O’CONNOR v COMCARE

[2005] FMCA 1891

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Appeal from AAT

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, ss.44
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss.4, 14

Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289
Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 71 ALR 673
Blackwood Hodge Australia Proprietary Limited v Collector of Customs Number 2 (1983) Australian Law Digest 38
Linel v Repatriation Commission (1982) 4ACN
Thiele v Commonwealth of Australia (1990) 22 FCR 342
Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FLR 316

Applicant:

DAVID O’CONNOR

Respondent:

COMCARE

File Number:

BRG390 of 2005

Judgment of:

Rimmer FM

Hearing date:

7 October 2005

Date of Last Submission:

7 October 2005

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

20 December 2005

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Kent

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Hall Dayne

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr King-Scott

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Dibbs Abbott Stillman

ORDERS

That the appeal be dismissed.
That the appellant shall pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRG390/2005

DAVID O’CONNOR

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Proceedings

This is an appeal pursuant to s.44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("AAT Act") from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal delivered on 25 May 2005.
The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the respondent dated

4 July 2003 which affirmed the determination made by the respondent on 27 March 2003. The determinations related to a claim made by the applicant under Section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the SRC Act").
The applicant filed a notice of appeal on 21 June 2005 in the Federal Court of Australia. By order made on 7 July 2005, Registrar Reynolds of that court transferred the appeal to the Federal Magistrates Court.

Background

The applicant was previously an employee of the Australian Taxation Office. He claimed compensation from the Respondent in respect of a psychiatric injury suffered in circumstances related to his work.
The respondent denied liability to compensate the applicant by a determination of 27 March 2003 and pursuant to Section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”). This decision was confirmed by an independent review officer on the 4 July 2003 and a subsequent appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant now appeals to this Court from the determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated the 25 May 2005.
The relevant facts are not in dispute. They are set out in pages 21 & 22 of the Members reasons. The applicant was an employee of the Australian Taxation Office. He took part in a salary packaging arrangement for the acquisition of a motor vehicle which was at times to be used for work purposes. He was not required to obtain a private motor vehicle through salary packaging, although the Australian Taxation Office did facilitate the salary packaging arrangement which the applicant took advantage…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading O'Connor v COMCARE

Details

AGLC: O'Connor v COMCARE [2005] FMCA 1891
Case: [2005] FMCA 1891
Decision Date: 20 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, O'Connor appealed a decision made by COMCARE, the government entity responsible for workplace rehabilitation and compensation in Australia. O'Connor contested the assessment of his permanent impairment and the subsequent calculation of his compensation entitlements. The appeal centred around the interpretation and application of statutory provisions related to workers' compensation, specifically under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The legal issues before the court included whether COMCARE had correctly assessed O'Connor's permanent impairment and whether the tribunal had properly exercised its discretion in determining the amount of compensation payable. The court was required to determine whether there were any errors in the tribunal's approach to the statutory framework, including its interpretation of the relevant legislative provisions and its consideration of medical evidence. The court also needed to assess whether the tribunal had given adequate weight to the medical evidence and whether its decision was open to being characterised as unreasonable.

The court found that the tribunal had correctly applied the statutory provisions and had exercised its discretion in a manner consistent with the legislative intent. The tribunal had appropriately considered the medical evidence and had made findings that were supported by the evidence presented. The court determined that there were no errors in the tribunal's approach and that its decision was not unreasonable. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs as per the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the appeal be dismissed.

That the appellant shall pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed in default of agreement pursuant to the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

O'Connor v COMCARE [2005] FMCA 1891

Most Recent Citation

Trimboli, M. v. The Secretary to the Department of Social Security [1989] FCA 86

Cases citing this decision · 12 of 12 shown

Despot v Department of Family and Community Services
[2004] FCA 140 Para 5

…er, it and it alone is the subject matter of the appeal and the ambit of the appeal is confined to it.’ Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 291 Ground 1 – Denial of Right to Tender Character Evidence…
Young v D.F.A.C.S
[2002] FMCA 369 Para 1

…Federal Magistrates Court only in respect of errors of law. In respect of this requirement, the full Federal Court in Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 291 said: The existence of a question of law is not merely a qualifying condition to ground an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal; rather, it…
Druett v Dept. of Family and Community Services (No 3)
[2002] FMCA 14 Para 4

…service, Ed. D C Pearce, the learned authors deal with the question of an appeal under s 44 of the AAT Act. They cite Brown v Repatriation Comm (1985) 60 ALR 289 as authority for the proposition that a question of law alone is the subject matter of the appeal and that “the ambit of the appeal is confined to it”. The…
Druett v Dept. of Family and Community Services (No 2)
[2002] FMCA 13 Para 4

…arce - Butterworths, quote from two decisions which clearly define the limits of the Court in hearing these matters. In Brown v Repatriation Comm (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 291, the Full Bench of the Federal Court said: “The existence of a question of law is not merely a qualifying condition to ground an appeal from a dec…
Rendell v Repatriation Commission
[2001] FCA 1881 Para 11

…h). The questions of law alone are the subject matter of the appeal and the scope of the appeal is confined to them - Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 291. It follows that a finding by the Tribunal on a matter of fact cannot be reviewed on appeal unless infected by an error of law - Waterford v T…
ex parte Hobart City Council; Hobart City Council v Triffett
[2001] TASSC 139 Para 1

…rs "in relation to" the costs of an appeal as it thinks fit. The expression "in relation to" is an expression of wide import, Foord v Whiddett & Anor (1985) 60 ALR 289, Sheppard J at 282. Insofar as that expression bears on the meaning to be given to the subject matter of the grant of power, that is, the "costs of a…
Husband v Repatriation Commission
[2000] FCA 356 Para 4

…. The questions of law alone are the subject matter of the appeal and the ambit of the appeal is confined to them – Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 291. It is a corollary of that limitation that a finding by the Tribunal on a matter of fact cannot be reviewed on appeal unless vitiated by an erro…
Creswick, P. v Australian Securities Commission
[1993] FCA 272

…appeal. AS to the statutory requirement that the appeal proceed only on a question of law a Full Court of this Court has said in Brown v Re~atriatioq (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 291:…
Commissioner of Taxation v Roberts
[1992] FCA 543

…(1989) 89 ATC 5101 at 5112-3. The ambit of the appeal is confined to the question of law which invests jurisdiction: Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 291. The legislative scheme is thus to leave the Tribunal as the final arbiter of fact, but to commit to this court jurisdiction to correct errors…
Commissioner of Police v Rosevear, G
[1991] FCA 517

…v Commissioner of Police at 604. The appeal did not operate as an appeal by way of rehearing of the whole matter: cf Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 292. The appeal was not one on the merits of the decision.…
Commissioner of Taxation v Murray
[1990] FCA 83

…ls Tribunal Act 1975 an appeal to this Court from the Tribunal is an appeal on and limited to a question of law (see Brown v. Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 291 and Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Brixius (1987) 87 ATC 4963; 16 FCR 359). The respondent initially challenged the competency of the Cou…
Trimboli v Secretary, Department of Social Security
[1989] FCA 86

…bunal lies only on a question of law: s.44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975. As this Court said in Brown v. Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 at p 291:…

View all 12 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 6 of 6 shown

Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission
[1990] FCA 511 Para 4

…In paragraph [49] the learned member correctly set out the statements of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FLR 316.…
Thiele v Commonwealth of Australia
[1990] FCA 175 Para 1

…the Act being beneficial legislation should be interpreted such that the construction favourable to the worker should be preferred such as held in Thiele v Commonwealth of Australia (1990) 22 FCR. It is submitted that if this principle is taken into account than the Tribunal was in error in concluding that the appellants medical condition…
Waterford v the Commonwealth
[1987] HCA 25

…Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 Waterford v Commonwealth (1987) 71 ALR 673 Blackwood Hodge Australia Proprietary Limited v Collector of Customs Number 2 (1983) Australian Law Digest 38 Linel v Repatriation Commission (1982) 4ACN Thiele v Commonwealth of Australia (1990) 22 FCR 342 Treloar v Australian Telecommun…
Brown v Repatriation Commission
[1985] FCA 236 Para 3

…ourt and on transfer now to the Federal Magistrates Court only in respect of errors of law. In respect of this requirement, the full Federal Court in Brown v Repatriation Commission (1985) 60 ALR 289 at 291 said: The existence of a question of law is not merely a qualifying condition to ground an appeal from a decision of the Tribunal;…
Khoury v Government Insurance Office (NSW)
[1984] HCA 55 Para 9

…in the confines of the actual language employed and what is fairly open on the words used’: Khoury (M & S) v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1984) 54 ALR 639 at 650; Accident Insurance Mutual Ltd v Sullivan (1986) 7 NSWLR 65 at 68 per Burchett J citing the discussion above.”…
Bull v Attorney-General (NSW)
[1913] HCA 60 Para 8

…opted in relation to the interpretation of this type of legislation is provided by Isaacs J (dissenting) in Bull v Attorney-General (NSW) (1913) 17 CLR 370.”…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
14, 4 4 mentions (from Para 2)
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
44 3 mentions (from Para 1)