Rosillo v Telstra Corporation Limited

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Rosillo v Telstra Corporation Limited [2003] FCA 1628

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal – compensation claim under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) for work-related injury – whether Tribunal correctly applied the law as to future claims for compensation.

ANTHONY ROSILLO v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED

N866 of 2003

MADGWICK J
8 DECEMBER 2003
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N866 of 2003

BETWEEN:	ANTHONY ROSILLO APPLICANT
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 DECEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside.

2.The decisions purportedly made on behalf of the respondent concerning the appellant on 28 August 2001 and 26 October 2001 be set aside. 

3.The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs before the Tribunal which, if not agreed, are to be taxed by a relevant officer pursuant to s 67(13) of the Compensation Act.

4.The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs in this court to be assessed or taxed.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N866 of 2003

BETWEEN:	ANTHONY ROSILLO APPLICANT
AND:	TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	MADGWICK J
DATE:	8 DECEMBER 2003
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(revised from transcript)

HIS HONOUR:

1. This is a proceeding brought under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Tribunal Act’). That section permits a party to a proceeding before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) to ‘appeal’ to this Court on a question of law from any decision of the Tribunal in that proceeding, in consequence of which this Court, pursuant to s 44(4), is obliged to hear and determine the appeal and empowered to make ‘such orders as it thinks appropriate by reason of its decision’. Section 44(4) makes it clear that that general expression is not to be limited merely to affirming, or setting aside and remitting for re-hearing, a decision.

2. The appellant was employed by the respondent for many years. He suffered injury to his back in work-related incidents in 1991 and 1993. On 2 June 1993, a delegate of the respondent determined in accordance with s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (‘the Compensation Act’) that Telstra’s predecessor, Telecom Australia, was liable to pay the appellant compensation under the Compensation Act, in respect of a ‘strained lower lumbar region’ injury and subsequently the appellant was paid periodic amounts on account of his incapacity for work and was reimbursed for medical and hospital expenses in connection with operative treatment he underwent for his back.

3. In 1999 a reviewable decision (that is, by the Tribunal) denying liability for permanent impairment was made by a delegate of the respondent and the appellant contested that by way of an application for review made to the Tribunal. In…