Ragusa and Australian Postal Corporation (Practice and procedure)
[2025] ARTA 1774
•10 September 2025
Ragusa and Australian Postal Corporation (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 1774 (10 September 2025)
Applicant/s: Michael Ragusa
Respondent: Australian Postal Corporation
Tribunal Number: 2024/10998
Tribunal:General Member M. Carey
Place:Melbourne
Date:10 September 2025
Decision:
The review application in matter number 2024/10998 is dismissed pursuant to:
(a)section 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) for the applicant’s failure to attend two telephone Directions Hearings commencing 11.00am on 21 August 2025 and commencing 10.00am on 10 September 2025 having received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case events; and
(b)section 100 of the ART Act for the applicant’s failure to comply with the order made on 21 August 2025 requiring him to advise the Tribunal on or before 9 September 2025 whether he had secured legal representation or whether he was prepared to proceed with the application without such representation.
.......................[SGD].............................
General Member M. Carey
Catchwords
DISMISSAL – failure to appear at Tribunal case event – Directions Hearings by telephone – parties given appropriate notice specifying time, date and place of Tribunal case event – respondent appeared at case events – applicant history of non-attendance considered – application dismissed.
DISMISSAL – failure to comply with an order of the Tribunal in relation to the proceeding – direction to advise Tribunal of intention to proceed whether with representation or without such representation – time specific direction – applicant failed to give the advice directed – application dismissed.
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)Statement of Reasons
Mr Ragusa has, until today, been an applicant seeking review of a decision made by the Australian Postal Corporation (Australia Post) to cease making payments of compensation pursuant to sections 16 and 19 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) for incapacity leave and medical treatment from 26 September 2024. He had been entitled to such compensation in relation to an injury identified as ‘disc bulge at L5/S1/right sided sciatica and exacerbated previous underlying psychiatric disorder”.
On 19 December 2024, Mr Ragusa, through his former solicitors, commenced proceedings for review of the decision made on 8 November 2024.[1]
[1] T84, 286-289. References commencing with the letter ‘T’ are references to Tribunal documents that are lodged with the Tribunal pursuant to a Notice to the respondent pursuant to s 23 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), requiring a decision-maker to give to the Tribunal all documents within its control relevant to the review. They are generally known as ‘T-Documents’, sequentially numbered, with subsequent page references.
In a previous decision dated 26 May 2025, setting aside Mr Ragusa’s objection to the inspection of his treating psychologist’s clinical notes that were summoned to the Tribunal, I noted a brief history of the injury and compensation:
3. In his report of the injury made on 12 November 2013, he described that while he was ‘running, pushing full ULD’s” he experienced ‘right leg aching, upper thigh down to knee’ which he attributed to ‘pushing, pulling and moving full UD’s and loading onto the lines’ at the Melbourne Parcel Facility. He identified 10.20pm on 12 November 2013 as the time when the injury occurred. He further described starting treatment at 10.50pm that same day, consisting of the application of an ‘ice pack’ on the complaint of ‘muscle spasms in right knee area, tightness of muscles in upper right leg down to the knee, pins and needles in lower leg.’
4. A subsequent claim for compensation was made and on 15 April 2014 the respondent, Australia Post, accepted liability to pay compensation for ‘disc bulge at L5/S1/right sided sciatica’.
5. The course of the recovery from injury was evidently not smooth. From a reading of the documents lodged with the Tribunal there were reports of persistent pain affecting function and psychological difficulties with dealings his employment in the context of his managing return to work on alternative duties with pain. On 9 April 2019 the respondent reviewed its liability to pay compensation following receipt of a letter from a treater stating Mr Ragusa was suffering from ‘stress at work secondary to chronic back pain’. The respondent determined on that day not to accept liability for such a stress claim because it was not considered to be related to the accepted work injury.
6. However, on 11 February 2021, following receipt of a report from Dr Erin Redmond, a psychiatrist who examined Mr Ragusa on behalf of Australia Post on 14 December 2020 and reported the results of that examination on 22 December 2020, liability for the claim was altered, by written determination, to ‘disc bulge at L5/S1/right sided sciatica and exacerbated previous underlying psychiatric disorder’.
7. Since that time, Australia Post has paid compensation in respect of the psychiatric condition.
8. Australia Post, on 16 September 2024, denied liability to pay of compensation to the costs of treatment in the form of a referral to a pain specialist, Mr Gavin Weeks, particularly referring to an opinion provided by Dr Stanley-Clarke, an orthopaedic surgeon, who conducted a file review and reported that it was apparent to him that Mr Ragusa’s ‘presentation is one of pain, that he has a chronic pain syndrome. This is non-organic/psychosomatic and this would appear to be his major impediment of returning to normal functionality’.
9. That same day, 16 September 2024, Australia Post made a further determination refusing any further liability to pay compensation in the form of medical treatment costs or incapacity leave payments. Following internal review, that decision was affirmed by the reviewable decision of 8 November 2024, the subject of the present review.
10. At issue in these proceedings is the continued existence of an incapacitation for work that results from the injury in 2013, whether by the identified physical injury, however described, of the aggravation of any psychological condition by that 2013 physical injury. Further, there is an issue concerning the compensation for any treatment, whether by physical therapy, medication, psychiatric counselling or pain management that can be said to be ‘in relation to’ the identified injuries and which are reasonable to obtain in the circumstances.
Not long after that decision was made, on 30 June 2025, Mr Ragusa’s solicitors notified the Tribunal that they ceased to act on his behalf and provided an email address and telephone number through which he could be contacted. At their request, so as not to prejudice him through the loss of representation, a telephone conference arranged by the Tribunal for 3 July 2025 was vacated and rescheduled for 29 July 2025. Mr Ragusa was given appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the new telephone conference on 29 July 2025 directed to the email address provided.
The obligations of parties to assist the Tribunal, and to provide means of maintaining communication, are set out at paragraphs 2.2 to 2.8 of the Administrative Review Tribunal (Common Procedures) Practice Direction 2024:
Obligations of parties and representatives to assist the Tribunal
2.2 Section 56 of the Act requires all parties and their representatives before the Tribunal to use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal in achieving its objective under section 9 of the Act and to assist the Tribunal to make the correct or preferable decision in relation to a review.
2.3 By acting in accordance with this Practice Direction, parties can assist the Tribunal to fulfil its objective.
Communicating with the Tribunal
2.4 Parties and their representatives must provide the Tribunal with a current telephone number and email address, unless neither the party nor the representative have access to a telephone or the internet.
2.5 The Tribunal will send documents and notices about an application for review to the most recent email address provided in connection with the review, unless the Tribunal determines otherwise.
2.6 Where a litigation supporter is appointed, the Tribunal will communicate with the litigation supporter and the representative of the party (where a representative has been appointed).
2.7 Parties must not contact, or communicate with, Members other than during a hearing, including a directions hearing. At all other times, contact or communication may only be made through Tribunal staff or Registrars.
2.8 Substantive communications between the Tribunal and a party should be copied to all other participating parties, unless a confidentiality application or order is in place or there is another legal reason for not doing so.
Note: Where a family violence order or other court order is in place prohibiting one party from contacting another, correspondence should not be copied to that other party.
The respondent also engaged in email communication with the applicant using the address provided on or about 21 July 2025 and received replies.
The respondent submitted that at the telephone conference on 29 July 2025, Mr Ragusa was contacted using the telephone but after three unsuccessful attempts to contact him on his telephone, he then answered the telephone and ultimately did not participate in the discussion and abruptly ended the call.
A telephone Directions Hearing was convened on 21 August 2025, but Mr Ragusa failed to appear. Subsection 72(1) of the ART Act requires the Tribunal to give ‘written notice to the parties to the proceeding of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event.’ I made enquiries and confirmed to my satisfaction that he had been provided with appropriate notice of date, time and place of the Directions Hearing.
The Tribunal adopts various procedures to facilitate proper review of decisions. Those procedures can include the appointment of a ‘Tribunal case event’, which is defined in section 4 of the ART Act:
Tribunal case event, in relation to a proceeding in the Tribunal, means:
(a) the hearing, or part of the hearing, of the proceeding; or
(b) a directions hearing, or part of a directions hearing, in relation to the proceeding; or
(c) a dispute resolution process, or part of a dispute resolution process, under Subdivision C of Division 6 of Part 4 in relation to the proceeding.
The non-appearance of a party does not stop the Tribunal from continuing to manage the proceeding. Section 81 of the ART Act provides:
81 Tribunal may proceed without absent party
The Tribunal may proceed with a Tribunal case event that relates to a proceeding in the absence of a party to the proceeding if the Tribunal is satisfied that the party received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event.
Because Mr Ragusa had been provided with appropriate notice of date, time and place of the Directions Hearing, I proceeded to make a Direction in his absence. That direction was issued to the parties in writing following the conclusion of the 21 August 2025 Tribunal case event and stated:
1.This Telephone Directions Hearing is adjourned to 10.00am on Wednesday, 10 September 2025 due to the applicant’s failure to attend.
2.On or before 9 September 2025, the applicant will advise the Tribunal in writing whether he had secured legal representation or, failing that, whether he is prepared to proceed in this application without such representation.
As at today, 10 September 2025 no such written advice has been given to the Tribunal. Mr Ragusa has therefore failed to comply with an order of the Tribunal. Section 79 of the ART Act states, in part, relevant to the present matter:
79 Tribunal may give directions in relation to procedure for proceeding
(1) The Tribunal may, by order, give directions in relation to the procedure to be followed for a proceeding in the Tribunal.
(2) The order may do any of the following:
(a) require a party to the proceeding to give information or documents to the Tribunal or another party to the proceeding for the purposes of the proceeding;
…
At 10.00am this morning, 10 September 2025, the time appointed for the telephone Directions Hearing, three separate attempts were made to connect Mr Ragusa to the hearing using the telephone number provided to the Tribunal. On each of the three attempts no answer was made.
The respondent’s representative confirmed that she had obtained the written notification of the date, time and place of the Directions Hearing and that the notice was directed to both parties. The respondent also confirmed that the same email address was used as earlier provided and to which Mr Ragusa had made response on 21 July 2025.
Hence, on both 21 August 2025 and 10 September 2025, in spite of the fact that Mr Ragusa received appropriate notification of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event, he failed to appear. I take into consideration his abrupt termination of his participation in the telephone conference on 29 July 2025 which appears to be consistent with this pattern of refusal to appear and to assist the Tribunal in review of the application he made.
Failure to appear at a Tribunal case event may result in dismissal of the application for review pursuant to section 99 of the ART Act which states:
99 Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant does not appear
If:
(a) the applicant fails to appear at a Tribunal case event that relates to a proceeding in relation to an application; and
(b) the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event;
the Tribunal may dismiss the application.
Further, failure to comply with a direction is ground for dismissal of an application. Section 100 of the ART Act provides:
100 Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant fails to comply with order etc.
The Tribunal may dismiss an application made to the Tribunal if the applicant fails to do either of the following within a reasonable time:
(a) proceed with the application;
(b) comply with this Act or an order of the Tribunal in relation to the proceeding in relation to the application.
Mr Ragusa has demonstrated a pattern of behaviour in relation to the attempts to engage him in the management of his review application that consistently demonstrates a refusal to participate in Tribunal case events or obedience to the most basic orders to communicate with the Tribunal as to how he intends to proceed.
His consistent refusal to participate is at odds with the obligations set out in section 56 of the ART requiring all parties to use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal in achieving its objective of providing fair and just resolution of disputes ‘quickly, and with as little formality and expense’ in the circumstances of the case.
I am satisfied that the respondent’s application for dismissal is justified in the circumstances pursuant to both section 99 and 100 of the ART Act.
21. I certify that the preceding twenty (20) paragraphs are a true copy of the written reasons for the decision herein of General Member M. Carey.
...............................[SGD].................................Associate
Dated: 12 September 2025
Date of hearing: 10 September 2025
Respondent: Ms Anella Bortone, Sparke Helmore Solicitors
1
0
0