Saywell and Comcare (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a stay order in the matter of *Saywell and Comcare (Compensation)*. The applicant, Mr Saywell, sought compensation from Comcare for a myocardial infarction, which Comcare had denied liability to pay. Mr Saywell alleged that Comcare's denial was based on an underlying ischaemic heart disease, and that Comcare had made an error of law in its determination.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether to grant a stay order, which would have suspended Comcare's decision to deny compensation pending further proceedings. This required the Tribunal to consider the appropriateness of using a stay order in the circumstances of the case, particularly in light of the alleged error of law.

Deputy President O'Donovan dismissed the application for a stay order. The Tribunal found that the circumstances did not warrant the exceptional measure of a stay. The reasoning focused on the fact that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient basis for suspending Comcare's decision, and that the application for a stay was not an appropriate mechanism to address the alleged error of law at that stage.