Ralph and Telstra Corporation Limited

[2006] AATA 346

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 346

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No S2006/61

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		ANDREW HENRY RALPH

Applicant

And TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Deputy President D G Jarvis

Date11 April 2006

PlaceAdelaide

Decision The Tribunal decides that it has no jurisdiction to review the matter which is the subject of the applicant’s application to this tribunal, and will not proceed further with the application.

D G Jarvis
  (Signed)
  Deputy President

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – jurisdiction – Commonwealth employees’ compensation – application to review refusal of respondent to deal with employee’s claim because of non-compliance with notice requesting information or a copy of specified documents – respondent’s claims manager lost employee’s file – no reviewable decision made by respondent – tribunal has no jurisdiction to review validity of notice – tribunal has no jurisdiction to review refusal to deal with claim for compensation.

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998 (Cth), ss 58 and 64

Ralph and Telstra Corporation [2006] AATA 106

REASONS FOR ORAL DECISION

11 April 2006   Deputy President D G Jarvis

1.      On the hearing of this application this morning, I decided that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the matter which is the subject of the applicant’s application.  I now provide brief reasons for that decision.

2.      By an application received on 6 March 2006, the applicant, Andrew Henry Ralph, applied for review of a refusal by the respondent, Telstra Corporation Limited, to deal with claims for compensation made by Mr Ralph in an email dated 16 February 2006.  That email was addressed to one Angelo Toaldo, the senior case manager of Allianz Australia Insurance Limited, the claims manager for Telstra’s workers’ compensation claims.  Mr Ralph’s email requested advice as to when he would receive a reply to issues raised by his claim for compensation which, he said, included:

“Decision on incapacity payments

Reconsideration for P.I.

Reconsideration for physiotherapy

Request for use of swimming pool

Request for psychology help

Request for occupational and pain management”

3.      The decision referred to in Mr Ralph’s application to this tribunal was described as a “refusal to act on claims”. This apparently referred to a refusal by Allianz to deal with Mr Ralph’s claims on the grounds that he had not complied with a notice issued under s 58 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (the SRC Act) on 13 May 2004, as subsequently modified by a partial waiver of the requirements of that notice.

4. At the hearing before me this morning, Mr Ralph claimed that he had provided to Telstra’s former claims manager a copy of the documents requested in the s 58 notice, and that in 2005 he had been advised that his claim would be dealt with. However, it was common ground that this has not occurred, and that because Mr Ralph’s file has been lost, Telstra has not made any reviewable decision in relation to any of Mr Ralph’s outstanding claims for compensation.

5.      It is appropriate to record that counsel for Telstra, Mr McGregor, advised this morning that Telstra is taking steps to obtain further copies of relevant medical records and reports so that Telstra will be in a position to deal with Mr Ralph’s outstanding claims.  I also note that Mr Ralph said this morning that he will cooperate with Telstra’s solicitors in their endeavours to obtain further information.

6.      In Re Ralph and Telstra Corporation [2006] AATA 106, I decided that this tribunal had no jurisdiction to review the refusal by Telstra to deal with the claims made by Mr Ralph in that matter on the grounds that he had not complied with the s 58 notice. I further decided that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the validity of the s 58 notice, and also had no jurisdiction to deal with Mr Ralph’s outstanding claims for compensation because Telstra had not made a reviewable decision pursuant to s 64 of the SRC Act. The present application raises the same issues.

7.      For the reasons set out in my earlier decision, I again decide that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to review the matter which is the subject of the applicant’s application in the present matter, and that the tribunal will not proceed further with the application.

I certify that the 7 preceding paragraphs are a
true copy of the reasons for the decision
herein of Deputy President D G Jarvis

Signed:         .....................................................................................
           J. MacIntyre  Associate

Date/s of Hearing  11 April 2006
Date of Decision  11 April 2006
Counsel for the Applicant         In person
Solicitor for the Applicant          -
Counsel for the Respondent     Mr S McGregor
Solicitor for the Respondent     Spark Helmore