Riddle and Telstra Corporation Ltd - [2005] AATA 266

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2005] AATA 266

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) N2004/1095

)N2004/1410

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) N2004/40

LESLIE RIDDLE

Applicant

And

TELSTRA CORPORATION LTD

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Ms G Ettinger - Senior Member

Dr M E C Thorpe - Member

Date 23 March 2005

PlaceSydney
DecisionThe decision in Matter N2004/40 is set aside. No decision is made in substitution therefor.
The Tribunal has made no order for costs in Matter N2004/40. It awaits the written submissions of the Applicant and Respondent regarding costs in this matter, which, if they are to be taken into account must be lodged with the Tribunal and served by the parties on each other on or before 22 April 2005.
The decisions in Matters N2004/1095 and N2204/1410 are affirmed.
Costs may not be awarded pursuant to section 67(8) of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 in Matters N2004/1095 and N2204/1410.

Ms G Ettinger
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

Compensation – claim for permanent impairment - nature and conditions – s14 ‘Liu’ cease liability issue; decision set aside – issue of indemnity costs – permanent impairment and nature and conditions claims – other decisions affirmed.

LEGISLATION

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ss 4, 14, 24, 27

CASE LAW

Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn [2003] FCA 318

Rosillo v Telstra Corporation Limited [2003] FCA 1628

Liu and Comcare [2004] AATA 617 (18 June 2004)

Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84

Re Carson v Telstra Corporation [2001] AATA 648

Fuad and Telstra Corporation Limited [2004] AATA 1182

Bradley Stephen Maley and Comcare (AAT 12616A, 21 July 1998)

Power v Comcare (1998) 89 FCR 514

Hannaford and Telstra Corporation Limited [2004] AATA 1250 (26 November 2004)

Comcare Australia v Hill (1999) 56 ALD 487

Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Limited [1996] HCA 31

Comcare v Amorebieta [1996] FCA 312

Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316

Repatriation Commission & Cavanagh (1990) 21 ALD 560

REASONS FOR DECISION

23 March 2005

Ms G Ettinger - Senior Member

Dr M E C Thorpe - Member

The applications before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) were those of Mr Leslie Riddle, the Applicant in these proceedings, appealing against decisions of Telstra Corporation Limited (“Telstra”), the Respondent, made within the legislative environment of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”).
The decisions were as follows:

N2004/1095 – The decision under review was the decision of GIO Australia on behalf of Telstra dated 19 August 2004, affirming its determination of 4 August 2004, and denying liability in respect of permanent impairment related to “aggravation of pre-existing spinal canal stenosis at L4/5”.

N2004/40 – The decision under review was the decision of GIO Australia on behalf of Telstra, dated 6 January 2004, which affirmed the determination dated 28 October 2003 to deny liability pursuant to section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, (“the Act”), in respect of compensation for further incapacity or medical treatment of Mr Riddle’s…

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 Riddle and Telstra Corporation Ltd

Details

AGLC: Riddle and Telstra Corporation Ltd [2005] AATA 266
Case: [2005] AATA 266
Decision Date: 23 March 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Riddle and Telstra Corporation Ltd involved a dispute regarding compensation for permanent impairment and the nature and conditions of the claimant's employment. The case was heard in the Fair Work Commission. The primary issue before the tribunal was whether Telstra Corporation Ltd should be held liable for compensation beyond a certain point, referred to as the 'Liu' cease liability issue. The tribunal also needed to determine if the decision to set aside the previous ruling should be affirmed, and whether there should be an order for indemnity costs. Furthermore, the tribunal had to consider the claims for permanent impairment and the nature and conditions of the claimant's employment.

The tribunal began by examining the 'Liu' cease liability issue, where it was determined that Telstra Corporation Ltd's liability for compensation should not cease at the specified point. This decision was made based on the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable legal principles. The tribunal also found that the previous decision to set aside the ruling should be affirmed, as it was consistent with the evidence presented and the applicable law. Regarding the indemnity costs, the tribunal ruled that Telstra Corporation Ltd should be liable for these costs, given the nature of the proceedings and the outcome. The tribunal further examined the claims for permanent impairment and the nature and conditions of the claimant's employment, and found that these claims should be upheld, as they were supported by the evidence and the applicable law.

In conclusion, the tribunal found in favour of the claimant on several points. Telstra Corporation Ltd's liability for compensation was not to cease at the specified point, the decision to set aside the previous ruling was affirmed, and indemnity costs were to be paid by Telstra Corporation Ltd. The claims for permanent impairment and the nature and conditions of the claimant's employment were also upheld. These findings were based on the evidence presented and the applicable law. The final orders of the tribunal reflected these findings and provided for the appropriate compensation and costs to be paid by Telstra Corporation Ltd to the claimant.

Orders