Legal Research
Cases
Peters v Comcare

Peters v Comcare

Case [2013] FCA 1361 16 December 2013

Jurisdiction

Administrative Action

Exclusionary Provisions

Reasonable Administrative Action

Administrative Law

Workers' Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Peters v Comcare [2013] FCA 1361

Citation: Peters v Comcare [2013] FCA 1361

Appeal from: Cheryl Peters v Comcare [2012] AATA 636

Parties: CHERYL PETERS v COMCARE

File number: VID 360 of 2013

Judge: TRACEY J

Date of judgment: 16 December 2013

Catchwords:
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – injury – date of injury – exclusionary provision – consideration of “administrative action” and “operational action” – whether date of injury to be determined prior to determining whether exclusionary provision applies – whether injury excluded under s 5A of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether notice of appeal contains questions of law

Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 5A, 7, 14, 54

Cases cited: Australian Telecommunications Corporation v Lambroglou (1990) 12 AAR 515 – considered
Baranski v Comcare (2013) 296 ALR 438 – cited
Birdseye v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2003) 38 AAR 55 – considered
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve (2012) 199 FCR 463 – discussed
Hussain v Minister for Foreign Affairs (2008) 169 FCR 241 – cited
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited (1986) 162 CLR 24 – considered
Repatriation Commission v Owens (1996) 70 ALJR 904 – considered
Smith v Comcare [2013] FCAFC 65 – discussed
TNT Skypak International (Aust) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 ATR 1067 – considered

Date of hearing: 5 December 2013

Date of last submissions: 18 November 2013

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 32

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms C Weeks

Solicitor for the Appellant: C R Weeks Legal Practice

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms C Dowsett

Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 360 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:
CHERYL PETERS
Appellant

AND:
COMCARE
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

16 DECEMBER 2013

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be dismissed.
2.The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 360 of 2013

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:
CHERYL PETERS
Appellant

AND:
COMCARE
Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE:

16 DECEMBER 2013

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

There is before the Court what purports to be an appeal under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (“the AAT Act”). I use the word “purports” because appeals may only be brought from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) “on a question of law”.
In her notice of appeal Ms Peters identifies seven questions which she says are questions of law. They are:
“1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in affirming [Comcare’s] decision to refuse [her] claim for compensation pursuant to section 54…

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 Peters v Comcare

Details

AGLC: Peters v Comcare [2013] FCA 1361
Case: [2013] FCA 1361
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cheryl Peters brought an appeal against the decision of Comcare, arguing that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had erred in law in refusing her claim for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Tracey J, found that there was no valid question of law for the Court to review, and dismissed the appeal. The Court found that the notice of appeal did not contain any proper questions of law, and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

The main legal issue in this case was whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had erred in law in refusing Cheryl Peters' claim for compensation. The Court found that there was no error of law and that the Tribunal's decision was correct. The Court also found that the distinction between "administrative action" and "operational action" did not apply in this case, as the events which contributed to Ms. Peters' injury were part of her employment and fell within the exclusionary provision in s 5A of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).

In summary, the Court found that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal had not erred in law in refusing Cheryl Peters' claim for compensation, and dismissed the appeal. The Court also found that the notice of appeal did not contain any proper questions of law, and therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.

Orders