Singh and DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Mr Singh against DHL Supply Chain (Australia) Pty Ltd before Dr Stewart Fenwick, Senior Member of the Tribunal. The dispute arose from Mr Singh's failure to undertake a rehabilitation program, which the respondent argued suspended his right to institute proceedings under section 37(7) of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). Mr Singh had lodged new claims for compensation, and further applications for review had been filed with the Tribunal. The core issue was the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear these subsequent applications in light of the alleged suspension.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Singh's right to institute proceedings was lawfully suspended under section 37(7) of the SRC Act, and consequently, whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to consider his new claims for compensation. Additionally, the Tribunal considered an application by the respondent for a stay of the implementation of any decision, weighing the public interest and consequences for the parties.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the interpretation of section 37 of the SRC Act, drawing on the Full Court's decision in *Forgie*. It was held that a formal determination must be made before an employee's rights can be suspended under section 37(7). The Tribunal found that the applicant's primary contention that his rights were not lawfully suspended until his refusal was evaluated was fundamentally flawed, as the decision in *Forgie* merely reinforced the necessity of an initial determination. The Tribunal also addressed the respondent's submissions regarding *Sinnaiah*, concluding that section 37 needed to be read as a whole, and the rehabilitation program referred to in section 37(7) was specific to the injury for which a determination had been made under section 37(1). The Tribunal emphasised that the words "under this act" in section 37(7) did not extend the suspension beyond the injury for which the program was ordered, and that each claim lodged by an employee is treated as a claim for a separate injury, citing the High Court in *Canute*.

Consequently, the Tribunal refused the respondent's application for a stay of implementation under section 41(2) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975*. The Tribunal found it unnecessary to make any specific orders as sought by the respondent, based on its interpretation of section 37(7) of the SRC Act.