Smaistrla and Optus Administration Pty Ltd (Compensation)

The matter before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerned an application by Ms Smaistrla for a review of a decision, with Optus Administration Pty Ltd as the respondent. The core of the dispute revolved around the Tribunal's power to dismiss Ms Smaistrla's application due to delays in proceeding with the hearing.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether to exercise its discretionary power under section 42A(5)(a) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) to dismiss the application for failing to proceed, or alternatively, under section 42A(2) for failing to appear at a hearing. The Tribunal also had to consider its overarching objective under section 2A(b) of the AAT Act to pursue a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical, informal, and quick.

The Tribunal acknowledged the regrettable delays, including the fading memories of witnesses and the unavailability of former employees of the respondent. Despite these delays and the applicant's medical condition, which was supported by psychiatric evidence, the Tribunal decided it would be unreasonable to dismiss the application under section 42A(5)(a) at that stage. The Tribunal also considered section 42A(2) regarding non-appearance, but found it inapplicable as the applicant had maintained contact and provided medical reports, indicating no contumacious disregard for the Tribunal's authority. However, the Tribunal emphasised that it could not indefinitely adjourn the matter and that progress was necessary, even if a party was unable to actively conduct their case.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed that a telephone directions hearing be held in early November 2018 to determine the prospects for resuming the substantive hearing in early 2019.