Legal Research
Cases
Slattery v Comcare

Slattery v Comcare

Case [1996] FCA 883 9 October 1996

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1988

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1930

Limitation Periods

Res Judicata

Breach of Contract

Workers Compensation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CATCHWORDS

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Commonwealth Employees Compensation - Employee injured and receives compensation for post traumatic stress syndrome as a result of two collisions - Whether separate entitlement to compensation for injuries suffered in each collision although only one supervening incapacity - Whether recovery of damages in respect of the injuries suffered in the first collision precluded continuation of payment of compensation in respect of the injuries suffered in the second collision - Whether injuries suffered merged or resulted in only the one medical condition - Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in law in determining the issue prior to all of the medical evidence being adduced - Whether relief should be refused on discretionary grounds.

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s.48
Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) ss.5, 27, 98, 99

Australian Telecommunications Commission v. Leech (1982) 44 ALR 441, (1982) 69 FLR 409
Fisher v. Hebburn Ltd. (1960) 105 CLR 188
Accident Compensation Commission v. C.E. Heath Underwriting & Insurance (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. (1994) 121 ALR 417, (1994) 68 ALJR 525.
Commonwealth of Australia v. Keogh (1983) 50 ALR 693
Re Browne (1988) 14 ALD 705
Secretary, Department of Social Security v. Siviero (1986) 13 FCR 431
Telstra Corporation Ltd. v. Barrow (1994) 19 AAR 523
Mindin v. Comcare (Federal Court of Australia, O'Loughlin J unreported 1 July 1996)
Stead v. State Government Insurance Commission (1986) 161 CLR 141
Secretary Department of Social Security v. Cooper (1990) 26 FCR 13.

VG794/1995 JOHN ADRIAN SLATTERY V. COMCARE

CORAM:MERKEL J.
PLACE:MELBOURNE
DATE:9 OCTOBER 1996

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION VG No. 794 of 1995

On appeal from the General Administrative Division of
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by
Mrs. H.E. Hallowes, Senior Member, Mr. A. Argent, Member,
and Mr. I.L.G. Campbell, MC, Member

JOHN ADRIAN SLATTERY
Applicant

and

COMCARE
Respondent

CORAM:MERKEL J.
PLACE:MELBOURNE
DATE:9 OCTOBER 1996

MINUTES OF ORDERS

The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside.

The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be determined in accordance with law.

The respondent pay one-half of the applicant's costs of the appeal.

NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION VG No. 794 of 1995

On appeal from the General Administrative Division of
the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by
Mrs. H.E. Hallowes, Senior Member, Mr. A. Argent, Member,
and Mr. I.L.G. Campbell, MC, Member

JOHN ADRIAN SLATTERY
Applicant

and

COMCARE
Respondent

CORAM:MERKEL J.
PLACE:MELBOURNE
DATE:9 OCTOBER 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The facts
The applicant lodged a claim for compensation pursuant to the Commonwealth Employees Compensation Act 1930 (Cth) ("the 1930 Act") on 27 August 1970 for "fatty infiltration of liver and anxieties" caused by being on the HMAS Melbourne when it collided with the HMAS Voyager on 10 February 1964 ("the Voyager collision") and with the USS Frank E. Evans on 2 June 1969 ("the…

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.

Continue reading Slattery v Comcare

Details

AGLC: Slattery v Comcare [1996] FCA 883
Case: [1996] FCA 883
Decision Date: 9 Oct 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

John Adrian Slattery sought compensation for injuries he sustained from two separate collisions involving the HMAS Melbourne, one with the HMAS Voyager in 1964 and the other with the USS Frank E. Evans in 1969. Initially, his claim was denied but later accepted, leading to compensation payments from 1970 to 1993. In 1993, Slattery recovered common law damages for the injuries sustained in the Voyager collision, resulting in the cessation of his compensation payments. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed the decision to stop the payments, finding that the injuries for which damages were recovered were the same as those for which compensation was payable. Slattery appealed to the Federal Court, arguing that the AAT erred in deciding the case without hearing all medical evidence, which would have clarified whether his injuries from the two collisions were distinct or had merged. The court agreed that the AAT erred in law by not allowing all relevant evidence to be presented before making its decision, which deprived Slattery of procedural fairness. The Federal Court set aside the AAT's decision and remitted the case for reconsideration in light of the full evidence. The court ordered the respondent to pay half of the applicant's costs of the appeal.

Orders