Sims and Hayes (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the respondent regarding a claim for compensation made by Mr Sims, a deckhand injured while working on the vessel *Gabo Bay*. The core dispute revolved around whether the *Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992* (Cth) (the Seafarers Act) applied to Mr Sims' injury, thereby granting the Tribunal jurisdiction to review the respondent's decision. The respondent had failed to make a decision on Mr Sims' claim within the statutory timeframe, leading to a deemed disallowance, and subsequently rejected the claim after a reconsideration request, allegedly without adhering to procedural requirements.

The court was required to determine three primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the respondent's final decision was a "reviewable decision" under the Seafarers Act, which would enliven the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Secondly, whether the *Gabo Bay* qualified as a "prescribed ship" as defined by the Seafarers Act, a prerequisite for the Act's application. Thirdly, and crucially, whether the *Gabo Bay* was engaged in trade or commerce among the States or between Australia and places outside Australia at the time of the injury, as stipulated by section 19 of the Seafarers Act, which dictates the scope of the Act's application.

The court reasoned that the application of the Seafarers Act was contingent on the vessel being engaged in interstate or international trade or commerce. If this condition was not met, the Act would not apply, and consequently, the other issues concerning a reviewable decision and a prescribed ship would not arise. The court noted that Mr Sims had lodged a claim, and the respondent's failure to determine it within the prescribed 12 days resulted in a deemed disallowance. Mr Sims then requested a reconsideration, which the respondent ultimately rejected. Despite the respondent's alleged non-compliance with procedural requirements during the reconsideration process, the court indicated that if the Seafarers Act were applicable, this rejection would constitute a reviewable decision.

The court ultimately found that the *Gabo Bay* was not engaged in trade or commerce among the States, nor between Australia and places outside Australia, during the relevant voyage. This finding meant that section 19 of the Seafarers Act did not apply to the circumstances of Mr Sims' injury. Consequently, the Seafarers Act was held not to apply, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to review the respondent's decision.