Saunders and Telstra Corporation Limited - [2015] AATA 8

[2015] AATA 8

Division  GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
File Number  2012/2626
Re  Glenn Saunders
APPLICANT

And Telstra Corporation Limited
RESPONDENT

DECISION
Tribunal  Deputy President S A Forgie
Date  12 January 2015
Place  Melbourne
The Tribunal decides to affirm the reviewable decision of the respondent dated 9 June 2012 affirming an earlier decision dated 7 May 2012 determining that there was no liability under ss 24 and 27 of the SRC Act in respect of the applicant’s claim for “Aggravation of acute musculo-ligamentous lower back strain/adjustment disorder with depressed mood” suffered on 16 June 1999.
..[sgd] S A Forgie….
Deputy President

Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment
Commonwealth Employees’ Rehabilitation and Compensation Bill 1988
CASES
Australian Postal Corporation v Sinnaiah [2013] FCAFC 98; (2013) 213 FCR 449; 136 ALD 536
Behan v Australian Telecommunications Corp [1990] FCA 502; (1990) 26 FCR 337; 99 ALR 79; 12 AAR 466; 22 ALD 545
Brown v Comcare [2003] FCA 261; 147 FCR 290
Canute v Comcare [2006] HCA 47; (2006) 226 CLR 535; 229 ALR 445; 80 ALJR 1578; 91 ALD 552
Cartledge v E. Jopling & Sons Ltd [1963] AC 758
Comcare v Mooi [1996] FCA 1587; (1996) 69 FCR 439; 137 ALR 690; 23 AAR 160; 42 ALD 495
Commonwealth of Australia v Cornwell [2007] HCA 16; (2007) 229 CLR 519; 234 ALR 148
Commonwealth of Australia v Flaviano and Anor [1996] NSWSC 451; (1996) 40 NSWLR 199
Darley Main Colliery Co v Mitchell (1886) 11 App Cas 127
Djordjevic v Australian Iron & Steel Ltd (1966) 67 SR (NSW) 441
Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2009] HCA 38; (2009) 240 CLR 28; 259 ALR 416; 83 ALJR 1113; 111 ALD 1
Grant v Repatriation Commission [1999] FCA 1629; (1999) 57 ALD 1
Grogan v The Commonwealth unreported; 5 June 1996
Nominal Defendant v Gardikiotis [1996] HCA 53; (1996) 186 CLR 49; 136 ALR 1
Rothwell v Caverswall Stone Co Ltd [1944] 2 All ER 350
Todorovic v Waller [1981] HCA 72; (1981) 150 CLR 402; 37 ALR 481
Tusyn v State of Tasmania (No 2) [2008] TASSC 76
Tusyn v State of Tasmania (No 3) [2010] TASSC 55
OTHER MATERIAL
Chambers 21^st Century Dictionary, 1999, reprinted 2004, Chambers
Macquarie Dictionary, revised 3^rd edition, 2001, The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 5^th edition, 2002, Oxford University Press
REASONS FOR DECISION

Under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act), Telstra accepted liability to pay compensation to Mr Glenn Saunders in respect of a back injury he had suffered. Subsequently, Telstra accepted liability to pay compensation in respect of the permanent impairment Mr Saunders suffered as a result of the injury. After calculating Mr Saunders’ entitlement to compensation in respect of permanent impairment under s 24 and in respect of non-economic loss under 27…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Saunders and Telstra Corporation Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] AATA 8
Decision Date: 12 January 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Saunders versus Telstra Corporation Limited was heard in the Australian court, where the plaintiff, Saunders, sought compensation for psychological conditions resulting from a back injury sustained in an accident. The defendant, Telstra Corporation Limited, accepted liability for the initial injury but contested liability for the subsequent psychological condition on the basis that Saunders had already recovered damages in a previous legal action related to the back injury. The crux of the dispute was whether Saunders was entitled to compensation for the psychological condition when damages had already been recovered for the initial back injury.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Saunders' election to institute action for damages for the back injury precluded recovery of compensation for the psychological condition that arose from the same accident. Specifically, the court had to determine if the election related solely to the back injury or if it encompassed all damages arising from the accident, including the psychological condition. The court also needed to interpret the scope of the election and its implications for subsequent claims related to the same incident.

In its decision, the court clarified that the election to institute action related specifically to the back injury, and the damages recovered were confined to that injury. The court affirmed that since Saunders had already recovered damages for the back injury, compensation for the psychological condition was not payable. The court emphasised that the election did not extend to all damages arising from the accident but was limited to the initial injury. The decision underscored the importance of clearly defining the scope of an election when multiple injuries result from a single accident.

The final orders of the court affirmed the refusal of liability for the psychological condition, based on the prior recovery of damages for the back injury. The court held that Saunders was not entitled to additional compensation for the psychological condition, as it had already been accounted for in the earlier legal action. This decision underscores the necessity for claimants to carefully consider the scope of their claims when multiple injuries result from a single event.

Orders