Onassys and Comcare (Compensation) - [2021] AATA 829

Onassys and Comcare (Compensation) [2021] AATA 829 (12 April 2021)

Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/4044
Re:Cristina Onassys
APPLICANT

AndComcare
RESPONDENT

DECISION

Tribunal:The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President
Date:12 April 2021
Place:Sydney

The Tribunal decides that the correct and preferable decision is that the Applicant shall not be permitted to re-litigate her claim for workers’ compensation which a delegate of the Respondent denied in a decision dated 25 February 2004. The application is dismissed as an abuse of process under subsection 42B(1)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth).

..........................[SGD]..............................................

The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – interlocutory decision – whether the Applicant is attempting to relitigate claims previously settled – whether the Applicant should be permitted to relitigate claims previously settled – whether notice given as soon as possible in respect of injuries – whether the Respondent is prejudiced – whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with aggravations of an injury subject to a settled claim – application dismissed as abuse of process

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988

CASES

Commonwealth v Snell [2019] FCAFC 57

Mununggurr v Comcare [2020] FCA 1786

Novosel v Comcare [2017] FCA 722

Quinn and Australian Postal Corporation [1992] AATA 668

Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2004) 146 FCR 10

REASONS FOR DECISION

The Hon. John Pascoe AC CVO, Deputy President

12 April 2021

Background

The Applicant seeks review of a decision made by the Respondent on 17 June 2020 (the reviewable decision).
The reviewable decision affirmed an earlier determination by the Respondent, dated 15 May 2020. By that determination, the Respondent denied that it is liable to pay compensation to the Applicant under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act) in relation to the Applicant’s mental ailments of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Adjustment Disorder, and Major Depressive Disorder, which the Applicant claimed she sustained or first noticed on 21 January 2003.
The Applicant is a former employee of the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (formerly the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service). She was employed as a Quarantine Inspector. The Applicant ceased to be employed by the Commonwealth on 20 May 2015 when she was invalidity retired.
On 24 January 2003, the Applicant had an exchange with a colleague, Tina Li, during which it is alleged the Applicant called Ms Li ‘rude, impolite and bossy’ and told Ms Li that no-one liked her.
On 25 January 2003, the Applicant met with Assistant Airport Manager, Ian Sinclair, to discuss her exchange with Ms Li. During this meeting, the Applicant allegedly made a series of allegations about Ms Li, including that she had breached the APS Code of Conduct and that she may have bribed colleagues.
On either 1 or 2 February 2003, the Applicant reportedly approached Customs officer, Matthew Threadgold, and informed him Ms Li was using ‘loopholes in…

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 Onassys and Comcare (Compensation)

Details

AGLC: Onassys and Comcare (Compensation) [2021] AATA 829
Case: [2021] AATA 829
Decision Date: 12 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application by Onassys (the applicant) against a decision by Comcare (the respondent). The applicant sought to relitigate claims for compensation that had previously been settled. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant should be permitted to pursue these claims again, particularly in light of the prior settlements and the timing of the notice provided for the alleged injuries.

The Tribunal was required to determine several key legal issues. These included whether the applicant was attempting to relitigate claims that had already been settled, and if so, whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to entertain such relitigation. Further, the Tribunal had to consider whether the notice given by the applicant regarding the injuries was provided as soon as reasonably practicable, and whether Comcare would suffer prejudice if the applicant were allowed to relitigate. The central question was whether the Tribunal possessed the jurisdiction to deal with alleged aggravations of an injury that was the subject of a previously settled claim.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal found that the applicant's attempt to relitigate the settled claims constituted an abuse of process. The Tribunal applied the legal principle that parties should not be permitted to relitigate matters that have been finally determined by settlement, absent exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated any basis upon which to reopen the settled claims and that allowing the matter to proceed would be vexatious and an improper use of the Tribunal's resources.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's application, finding it to be an abuse of process.

Orders