Sutcliffe and Australian Postal Corporation - [2006] AATA 1023

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 1023

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) Nos N2004/212, N2005/714, N2005/808, and N2005/1156

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		DALE SUTCLIFFE

Applicant

And

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

MS N BELL, Senior Member
DR J CAMPBELL, Member

Date 30 November 2006

Place Sydney

Decision

1. The reviewable decision dated 3 February 2004, the subject of application number N2004/212, is set aside and instead the Tribunal decides:

i. As at 28 August 2003 to date, Australia Post is not liable to pay compensation to Mr Sutcliffe under sections 19 and 24 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

ii. As at 11 September 2003 to date, Australia Post is not liable to pay compensation to Mr Sutcliffe under section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.

The Tribunal makes no order as to the costs of Application N2004/212.

2. The reviewable decision dated 17 May 2005, the subject of application number N2005/714, is affirmed.

3. The reviewable decision dated 12 June 2005, the subject of application number N2005/808, is affirmed.

4. The reviewable decision dated 5 September 2005, the subject of application number N2005/1156, is affirmed.

....................[Sgd]...................
Senior Member Ms N Bell

COMPENSATION – Is there a Back Condition – Was the Back Condition Caused by the Work Place – What Psychiatric Condition Exists – Was the Psychiatric Condition Caused or Aggravated by the Work Place - Mild Degeneration of the Lumber Spine – Variable Degree of Sensory Alteration – Non Physical Causes of Symptoms - Borderline Personality Disorder with Adjustment Disorder – Moderate to Severe Depression

REASONS FOR DECISION

MS N BELL, Senior Member
DR J CAMPBELL, Member

Mr Sutcliffe commenced work with Australia Post in 1989 and has spent most of his time there as a Postal Delivery Officer. He has had a number of injuries over the last 17 years but his four applications to the Tribunal concern injuries to his back and a psychiatric injury. In particular, Mr Sutcliffe contends he injured his back on 10 January 2000 when he bent to lock a bike shed and again on 5 May 2000 when he was delivering mail on his bike. He also contends that the nature of his work, and particularly being required to ride a motorbike, caused an injury to his back. Australia Post, although it initially accepted liability for lower back strain, contends it has no present liability to pay compensation for incapacity, medical expenses or permanent impairment in relation to Mr Sutcliffe’s back. In particular, Australia Post says Mr Sutcliffe has a degenerative lumbar spine condition not related to or made worse by his employment.
As to his contended psychiatric injury, Mr Sutcliffe says he was harassed and verbally abused by colleagues. Australia Post denied liability for a psychiatric injury and any work related psychiatric permanent impairment. It contends that Mr Sutcliffe suffers from borderline personality disorder and that any distress or other symptoms experienced by Mr Sutcliffe are simply a manifestation…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sutcliffe and Australian Postal Corporation 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] AATA 1023
Decision Date: 30 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Dale Sutcliffe, an employee of Australia Post, who sought compensation for injuries sustained during his employment. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) reviewed four separate applications made by Mr. Sutcliffe concerning injuries to his back and a psychiatric injury. Australia Post initially accepted liability for lower back strain but later denied any ongoing liability for compensation related to Mr. Sutcliffe's back and psychiatric conditions. The core issues before the AAT were to determine the nature of Mr. Sutcliffe's back and psychiatric conditions and whether these conditions were caused or aggravated by his employment.

The Tribunal found that Mr. Sutcliffe suffers from a mild degenerative lumbar spine condition, a finding supported by unanimous expert medical evidence. Despite Mr. Sutcliffe's claims of exacerbation of his back condition due to specific incidents and the nature of his work, the Tribunal concluded that his back condition was neither caused nor aggravated by his employment. The evidence, including inconsistencies in Mr. Sutcliffe's accounts and the lack of significant medical evidence supporting aggravation, led to this conclusion.

Regarding the psychiatric condition, the Tribunal found that Mr. Sutcliffe suffers from borderline personality disorder. The evidence, including the assessments by various medical professionals and Mr. Sutcliffe's history, supported this diagnosis. The Tribunal determined that Mr. Sutcliffe's borderline personality disorder was not caused or aggravated by his employment, as his workplace was not a significant stressor compared to other life events. Therefore, Australia Post was not liable to compensate Mr. Sutcliffe for incapacity, medical expenses, or permanent impairment related to his psychiatric condition.

The Tribunal set aside the reviewable decision dated 3 February 2004 concerning Mr. Sutcliffe's back condition, affirming that Australia Post had no liability to pay compensation. The decisions dated 17 May 2005, 12 June 2005, and 5 September 2005 were affirmed. The Tribunal made no order as to the costs of the application concerning the set aside decision.

Orders