Oudyn and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation) - [2023] AATA 2730

Oudyn and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation) [2023] AATA 2730 (28 August 2023)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Number(s): 2020/6954
Re:Hendrikus Oudyn
APPLICANT

AndAustralian Postal Corporation
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal:Deputy President Hanger
Date:28 August 2023
Place:Brisbane

The application by the respondent is dismissed.
...............................[SGD]......................................
Deputy President Hanger
CATCHWORDS
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – dismissal application – whether application is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance – whether application is an abuse of process – whether application has no reasonable prospect of success – whether Applicant may relitigate issues – new evidence produced by Applicant – dismissal application is dismissed.
LEGISLATION
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
CASES
Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41; 201 CLR 552
Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales [2006] HCA 27; 226 CLR 256
Commonwealth of Australia v Snell [2019] FCAFC 57; 269 FCR 18
Novosel v Comcare [2017] FCA 722; 72 AAR 269
Re Paraponiaris and Secretary, Department of Employment [2015] AATA 895; 68 AAR 143
Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia [2010] HCA 28; 241 CLR 118
REASONS FOR DECISION
Deputy President Hanger
28 August 2023

For this application the tribunal has been reconstituted to me pursuant to an order of the President.
With the consent of both parties the matter is being heard and determined by me on the papers and transcript. However, in the course of considering the matter I held a directions hearing to clarify a couple of matters. I have heard no oral evidence but have been assisted by lengthy sets of submissions by counsel for both parties.
This is an application by the respondent, Australian Postal Corporation, pursuant to sections 33 and 42B of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) for summary dismissal of the applicant’s present application. That application is dated 17 May 2020,[1] and the applicant seeks compensation and rehabilitation in respect of major depression, chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and anxiety disorder emanating from an incident at work on 2 August 1999. The applicant was pinned between two vehicles and suffered a “soft tissue injury to the knees and muscular to thighs, knees, groin and upper legs”.[2] The respondent rejected the claim on 24 September 2020. The applicant applied for a reconsideration of that decision and that reconsideration confirmed the rejection of the claim. It is that decision which the applicant seeks to review.
[1] Documents lodged at the Tribunal under s 47 of the AAT Act (T Documents), T36, Applicant’s Claim for Rehabilitation and Compensation dated 17 May 2020.
[2] T4, Applicant’s Claim for Rehabilitation and Compensation dated 5 April 1999.
Relevant Statutory Provisions
Section 42B of the AAT Act provides:
1The tribunal may dismiss an application for the review of the decision, at any stage of the proceeding, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the application:
(a)is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance; or

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Oudyn and Australian Postal Corporation (Compensation) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] AATA 2730
Decision Date: 28 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Oudyn, brought proceedings against the Australian Postal Corporation concerning a compensation claim. The dispute centred on the applicant's assertion that the respondent had engaged in conduct that constituted a breach of contract and a contravention of the *Australian Consumer Law*. The matter came before Deputy President Hanger of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's application should be dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance, or constituted an abuse of process, or had no reasonable prospect of success. A related issue was whether the applicant was seeking to relitigate issues that had already been determined.

Deputy President Hanger considered the applicant's submissions, including the production of new evidence. The Tribunal found that the application was not frivolous, vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance, nor was it an abuse of process. Crucially, the Tribunal determined that the applicant had not had a prior opportunity to litigate the issues raised by the new evidence, and therefore, the application had a reasonable prospect of success.

Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the respondent's application for dismissal of the applicant's claim.

Orders