FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Slater v Telstra Corporation Limited [2001] FCA 1417
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – worker’s compensation – compensation under Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – calculation of liability to pay compensation – whether decision-maker failed to undertake calculation required by ss 14 and 19 of Act – whether decision-maker either failed to make a determination or remit matter to decision-maker – whether failure to do so amounted to error of law – whether s 37 of Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 creates obligation for decision-maker to make determination for vocational counselling and rehabilitation
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 14, 19, 37
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44GORDON SLATER v TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
Q52 OF 2001
TAMBERLIN, MANSFIELD & EMMETT JJ
11 OCTOBER 2001
BRISBANE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q52 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
GORDON SLATER
APPELLANTAND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
RESPONDENTJUDGES:
TAMBERLIN, MANSFIELD & EMMETT JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
11 OCTOBER 2001
WHERE MADE:
BRISBANE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal be upheld in part.
2.Order 2 made on 28 February 2001, that the application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be dismissed, be set aside.
3.The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration according to law and in accordance with these reasons.
4.The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
5.The costs order made on 4 April 2001 be set aside and in lieu thereof, there be no order as to the costs of the proceeding.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
Q52 OF 2001
ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:
GORDON SLATER
APPELLANTAND:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
RESPONDENT
JUDGES:
TAMBERLIN, MANSFIELD & EMMETT JJ
DATE:
11 OCTOBER 2001
PLACE:
BRISBANE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT:
BACKGROUND
The appellant, Mr Gordon Slater (“the appellant”), was an employee of the respondent, Telstra Corporation Limited (“Telstra”), on a fixed term contract for the period 4 July 1996 to 4 January 1997. On 11 July 1996, the appellant sustained an injury to his left knee in the course of his employment with Telstra. On 19 July 1996, he made a claim for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”). Except for two days work on light duties in late July 1996, the appellant has not returned to work.
On 6 August 1996, Telstra accepted liability for incapacity payments to the appellant from 1 August 1996. On 17 March 1997, Telstra determined that, as of 9 January 1997, the appellant was capable of returning to full time work duties, with restrictions, and that it was not liable to pay compensation in respect of any period after that date. The appellant requested reconsideration of that determination. On…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Slater v 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2001] FCA 1417
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to decide whether the AAT had properly exercised its discretion under section 37 of the Act. The appeal hinged on whether the AAT had correctly considered whether Telstra should provide a program to assist Slater, as opposed to dismissing the application outright. Furthermore, the court had to examine if the Tribunal's failure to consider the exercise of the discretion was a legal error warranting the appeal's success.
The court held that the AAT had indeed erred in its decision-making process by not considering the exercise of the discretion under section 37. The Tribunal should have evaluated whether Telstra should provide the program or remit the matter back to Telstra for consideration. As a result, the appeal was partially successful. The court set aside the primary judge's order dismissing Slater's application to the AAT, and instead, remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration according to law and in line with the court's reasons. Additionally, Telstra was ordered to pay Slater's costs of the appeal, and the costs order made on 4 April 2001 was set aside with no order for the costs of the proceeding.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal be upheld in part.
2. Order 2 made on 28 February 2001, that the application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be dismissed, be set aside.
3. The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for reconsideration according to law and in accordance with these reasons.
4. The respondent pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal.
5. The costs order made on 4 April 2001 be set aside and in lieu thereof, there be no order as to the costs of the proceeding.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.