O’Hara and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned applications for review before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) by Mr O’Hara against Comcare. Mr O’Hara had accepted compensation claims for post-traumatic stress disorder and irritable bowel syndrome. The dispute arose from determinations made regarding Mr O’Hara's rehabilitation programs, including an initial program commenced in April 2022, an altered program in July 2022, and a further program determined in September 2022, which was expected to conclude in April 2023. Interlocutory issues were raised in relation to these applications.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it had jurisdiction to review a deemed decision of the rehabilitation authority, specifically concerning a failure or refusal to reconsider a rehabilitation program determination made on 26 September 2022. Mr O’Hara argued that his request for reconsideration constituted a deemed decision under section 3(3) and section 25(5) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), making it reviewable. Additionally, the Tribunal considered an application for an extension of time to lodge an application for review, where the decision in question was not considered reviewable by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal determined that Mr O’Hara's application for review of the deemed decision failed for want of jurisdiction. It found that the document Mr O’Hara relied upon as a request for reconsideration was addressed to specific officers and contained clear requests to each. However, the Tribunal concluded that these requests did not constitute a formal request for reconsideration of the rehabilitation program determination as contemplated by the relevant legislation, meaning no reviewable decision had been made by the rehabilitation authority. Consequently, the Tribunal found no jurisdiction to entertain the review.

In light of the lack of jurisdiction for the substantive review, the Tribunal refused the application for an extension of time to lodge the application for review. The Tribunal reasoned that it was not reasonable to grant additional time under section 29(7) of the AAT Act when the underlying application lacked a jurisdictional basis.