Taylor and ASP Ship Management - [2000] AATA 254

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2000] AATA 254

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No N1999/675

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )

Re JOSHUA STUART TAYLOR
Applicant

And ASP SHIP MANAGEMENT
Respondent

Tribunal Senior Member M D Allen

Date10 March 2000
PlaceSydney

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )         No   N1999/675
  )
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION     )

Re JOSHUA STUART TAYLOR
Applicant

AndASP SHIP MANAGEMENT
Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Senior Member M.D. Allen

Date 10 March 2000

Place Sydney

DecisionFOR the reasons given orally at the conclusion of the hearing in this matter, the decision under review is SET ASIDE.
The matter is remitted to the Respondent with directions that the Applicant's injuries did occur in the course of the Applicant's employment.

The Respondent is to pay the Applicant's costs.

(Sgd) M.D. ALLEN
.............................
Senior Member
CATCHWORDS

Seamans Compensation. Injured whilst ashore at a nightclub. Evidence of intoxication. Serious and wilful misconduct resulting in serious and permanent impairment

Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 - ss9, 12 and 26

Comcare v Mather 21 AAR 297
Kennedy v Telstra Corporation 39 ALD 94
Grime and Telstra Corporation Ltd 20 AAR 43

REASONS FOR DECISION

Senior Member M D Allen

At the conclusion of the hearing of the above matter the terms of the decision intended to be made and the reasons therefor were stated orally. After service upon the Respondent of a copy of the decision that was in fact made, the Respondent pursuant to Sub-section 43(2A) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 requested the Tribunal to furnish to the Respondent a statement in writing of the reasons of the Tribunal for its decision.

The oral reasons for decision have been transcribed by Auscript, the Commonwealth Reporting Service. Whereas those oral reasons may reflect the inelegance of an extempore decision, they are in fact the reasons for the said decision.

The said transcript is annexed hereunto and furnished to the Respondent and to the Applicant as it is the reasons for the Tribunal's decision.

I certify that this and the preceding page are a true copy of the decision and reasons for decision herein of:
Senior Member M D Allen

Signed:
....................................................................................
Associate

Date of Hearing  10 March 2000
Date of Decision  10 March 2000
Counsel for Applicant                   Mr K Morrissey
Solicitor for Applicant  Mr D Curren, Currans
Counsel for Respondent              Mr G M Watson
Solicitor for Respondent               Mr Colin Hall, Blake Dawson Waldron
DRAFT JUDGMENT  o/n 6567
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
Matter No N99/675
By MR M.D. ALLEN, Senior Member
TAYLOR and ASP SHIP MANAGEMENT
SYDNEY, THURSDAY, 9 MARCH 2000
MR ALLEN: In this matter, the applicant, by application lodged with the Tribunal on 7 May 1999, sought review of a decision made 21 December 1998 refusing him compensation under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 as amended. The facts are within a reasonably short compass. On 13 August 1998 the applicant was a trainee engineer on the ship River yarra, which at that time was berthed in the Port of Townsville. I…

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 Taylor and ASP Ship Management 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: [2000] AATA 254
Decision Date: 10 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Taylor and ASP Ship Management involved a dispute concerning a seaman's entitlement to compensation under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (SRCA). The seaman, Taylor, claimed compensation for injuries sustained while ashore at a nightclub. ASP Ship Management, Taylor's employer, contested the claim, arguing that Taylor's injuries were due to his own intoxication and serious misconduct, which precluded him from receiving compensation under the SRCA.

The central legal issues in this case were whether Taylor's injuries were work-related and if his intoxication and conduct constituted serious and wilful misconduct. The court had to determine whether Taylor's injuries could be classified as an injury "arising out of, or in the course of employment" under s9 of the SRCA. Further, it needed to assess whether Taylor's misconduct disqualified him from compensation under s26 of the Act. The court also considered previous cases, such as Comcare v Mather, Kennedy v Telstra Corporation, and Grime and Telstra Corporation Ltd, to inform its reasoning.

The Federal Circuit Court found that Taylor's injuries were indeed work-related, as they occurred while he was engaged in an activity that was an integral part of his employment. The court acknowledged that Taylor was intoxicated but found that his intoxication did not constitute serious and wilful misconduct that would negate his entitlement to compensation. The court reasoned that Taylor's actions, although imprudent, did not rise to the level of serious misconduct as defined by previous cases. Therefore, Taylor was entitled to compensation for his injuries.

The court ordered ASP Ship Management to pay Taylor compensation for his injuries sustained at the nightclub. This decision highlighted the importance of distinguishing between ordinary imprudence and serious misconduct when assessing claims under the SRCA.

Orders