Taylor and Comcare (Practice and procedure) - [2025] ARTA 2149

Taylor and Comcare (Practice and procedure) [2025] ARTA 2149 (15 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  Michelle Taylor
Respondent:  Comcare
Tribunal Number:                2025/2066

Tribunal:General Member M. Carey
Place:Melbourne
Date:15 October 2025

Decision:This review application in matter number 2025-2066 is dismissed pursuant to both section 99 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) for failure to appear, having been provided with the date time and place of a Tribunal case event, and pursuant to section 100 of the ART Act for failure to proceed with the application.

..............[SGD]........................................
General Member M. Carey
Catchwords
DISMISSAL – failure to appear at Tribunal case event – Directions hearing by telephone – parties given notice to appear specifying time, date and place of Tribunal case event – respondent appeared at case event – applicant history of non-attendance considered – application dismissed
DISMISSAL – failure to proceed with application – non-compliance with directions – failure to take active steps to advance the application and comply with directions or communicate with both Tribunal and respondent.
Legislation
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
Administrative Review Tribunal (Common Procedures) Practice Direction, 2024
Statement of Reasons

Michelle Taylor made a claim for compensation pursuant to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) on 1 August 2024 in respect of an injury identified in the claim form as ‘anxiety and depression’, the symptoms of which were first noticed on 6 June 2024.[1] She attributed that injury to her employment with the Department of Social Services.
[1] T4, 25-26. References commencing with the letter ‘T’ are references to Tribunal documents that are lodged with the Tribunal pursuant to a Notice to the respondent pursuant to s 23 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), requiring a decision-maker to give to the Tribunal all documents within its control relevant to the review. They are generally known as ‘T-Documents’, sequentially numbered, with subsequent page references.
Comcare rejected liability for the claimed injury in a determination dated 14 November 2024.[2] Following a requested review of that decision, Comcare affirmed the first decision in a reviewable decision dated 30 December 2024.[3]
[2] T16, 260-270.
[3] T26, 379-389.
Ms Taylor made an application for review of that reviewable decision by the Administrative Review Tribunal, completing her application form and lodging it electronically on 9 February 2025.[4] In completing that application form she notified the Tribunal of her mobile phone number and her email address.
[4] T2, 7.
The Tribunal arranged several preliminary conferences to be conducted by telephone to progress this matter. After several failed conferences and non-response to directions made by conference registrars, the parties were notified of a directions hearing set down for 2.00pm on 9 October 2025 to deal with the failure of Ms Taylor to comply with directions of the Tribunal.
Ms Taylor did not appear at the directions hearing and I have decided to dismiss this proceeding.
Legislation
It is the objective of the Tribunal, enshrined in section 9 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), to provide an independent mechanism of review that:
(a) is fair and just; and
(b) ensures that applications to the Tribunal are resolved as quickly, and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits; and
(c) is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties to proceedings; and
(d) improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making; and
(e) promotes public trust and confidence in the Tribunal.
By subsection 56(2) of the ART Act, the parties, including an applicant, must ‘use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal to achieve the objective in section 9.’
Further, the Administrative Review Tribunal (Common Procedures) Practice Direction, 2024, (the Common Procedures Direction) made pursuant to power conferred by subsection 36 (1) of the ART Act gives further guidance at paragraphs 2.2-2.5 of the Direction:
Obligations of parties and representatives to assist the Tribunal
2.2 Section 56 of the Act requires all parties and their representatives before the Tribunal to use their best endeavours to assist the Tribunal in achieving its objective under section 9 of the Act and to assist the Tribunal to make the correct or preferable decision in relation to a review.
2.3 By acting in accordance with this Practice Direction, parties can assist the Tribunal to fulfil its objective.
Communicating with the Tribunal
2.4 Parties and their representatives must provide the Tribunal with a current telephone number and email address, unless neither the party nor the representative have access to a telephone or the internet.
2.5 The Tribunal will send documents and notices about an application for review to the most recent email address provided in connection with the review, unless the Tribunal determines otherwise.
The Tribunal adopts various procedures to facilitate review of decisions. Those procedures can include the appointment of a Tribunal case event, which is defined in section 4 of the ART Act:
Tribunal case event, in relation to a proceeding in the Tribunal, means:
(a) the hearing, or part of the hearing, of the proceeding; or
(b) a directions hearing, or part of a directions hearing, in relation to the proceeding; or
(c) a dispute resolution process, or part of a dispute resolution process, under Subdivision C of Division 6 of Part 4 in relation to the proceeding.
A 'dispute resolution process’ referred to in the definition of Tribunal case event is also defined in section 4 of the ART Act as follows:
dispute resolution process means a procedure or service for the voluntary resolution of disputes, and includes:
(a) conferencing; and
(b) mediation; and
(c) neutral evaluation; and
(d) conciliation; and
(e) a procedure or service specified in the practice directions;
but does not include:
(f) arbitration; or
(g) court procedures or services.
Subsection 72(1) of the ART Act requires the Tribunal to give 'written notice to the parties to the proceeding of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event.'
Failure to appear at a Tribunal case event may result in dismissal of the application for review pursuant to section 99 of the ART Act which states:
99 Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant does not appear
If:
(a) the applicant fails to appear at a Tribunal case event that relates to a proceeding in relation to an application; and
(b) the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant received appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event;
the Tribunal may dismiss the application.
Failure to proceed with the application or comply with a Tribunal order may also result in dismissal. Section 100 of the ART Act provides:
100 Tribunal may dismiss application if applicant fails to comply with order etc.
The Tribunal may dismiss an application made to the Tribunal if the applicant fails to do either of the following within a reasonable time:
(a) proceed with the application;
(b) comply with this Act or an order of the Tribunal in relation to the proceeding in relation to the application.
Dismissal for failure to appear at case event
Ms Taylor was advised on 23 September 2025 of the date, time and place of the directions hearing set down for 2.00pm on 9 October 2025. The directions hearing was conducted by telephone. In accordance with the usual procedure, the parties were notified simultaneously by sending the notification by email. This is an appropriate form of notice given the obligations in paragraphs 2.4-2.5 of the Common Procedures Direction to provide current telephone number and email address. The notification sent is compliant with subsection 72(1) of the ART Act.
This is not the first failure to attend by Ms Taylor, having been provided with appropriate notification of the event. The respondent attended all such conferences arranged by the Tribunal and advised me:
(a)The first case conference was arranged for 29 April 2025 and Ms Taylor did not attend by telephone and provided no reason to explain her non-attendance. The conference was relisted for 9.00am on 12 June 2025.
(b)At 8:16 am the morning of 12 June 2025, Ms Taylor advised in writing that due to a death in the family she could not attend the conference. The conference was relisted for a third time for 25 July 2025.
(c)Ms Taylor did attend the first preliminary conference on 25 July 2025, two months after it was originally scheduled. Following that conference, the Tribunal registrar made the following directions:
1.On or before 1 August 2025, the Applicant to provide the Tribunal and the Respondent a list of treating practitioners for the purposes of the Respondent issuing requests to issue summons to the Tribunal.
2.On or before 15 August 2025, the Respondent to provide the Tribunal and the Applicant with the proposed date for the independent assessment.
3.On or before 15 August 2025, the Applicant to provide the Tribunal and the Respondent:
a.a written statement; and
b.any further evidence on which the Applicant intends to rely.
4.On or before 29 August 2025, the Respondent to provide the Tribunal and the Applicant with any written witness statements.
5.Within one (1) week of it becoming available, the Respondent must provide the Tribunal and the Applicant the independent assessor’s report and the briefing letter.
6.A case conference to be listed on a date no earlier than five (5) weeks after the date of the independent assessment.
The respondent complied with direction (2) by writing to Ms Taylor on 14 August 2025 with details of a proposed medical assessment. The respondent advised the Tribunal that Ms Taylor responded the same day and provided the details of her treating psychiatrist, Dr Giardini, and stated that he treated her for ADHD (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder). She did not provide a response in relation to the proposed IME assessment.
This email from Ms Taylor of 14 August 2025 was the last time the respondent has heard from the applicant.
The following day, 15 August 2025, the respondent wrote back to Ms Taylor and asked her for the identity of her general practitioner for the past five years. Ms Taylor had been obliged by Direction (1) to provide such information on or before 1 August 2025.
Absent any response, the respondent, on 21 August 2025, wrote to the Applicant referring to the directions of 25 July asking her to respond by 22 August 2025.
On 29 August 2025, the respondent wrote to the Tribunal and requested the directions for the respondent be vacated, as the Applicant had not yet complied with directions (1) and (3).
The Tribunal wrote to Ms Taylor on 9 September 2025 advising her there had been no response to directions (1) and (3) made on 25 July 2025 and requested her to provide a response within two business days and warned the matter may be listed for a directions hearing to deal with non-compliance. Ms Taylor was also reminded that an application may be dismissed under the ART Act if an applicant fails within a reasonable time to comply with a direction.
On 23 September 2025, the Tribunal sent a listing notice to both parties for the telephone directions hearing at 2.00pm on 9 October 2025.
I am satisfied that the applicant was provided with appropriate notice of the date, time and place of the Tribunal case event for 2.00pm on 9 October 2025 and failed to appear at that event. This is not an isolated failure in the context of the proceeding, and I am satisfied that this case should be dismissed pursuant to section 99 of the ART Act for the failure to appear at the case event of 9 October 2025.
Dismissal for failure to proceed with the application
There are necessary preparatory steps to be taken by the parties before an application can be ready for a hearing. Many of those steps are taken by respondents such as complying with the requirement to provide relevant documents related to the decision under review and participate in conferences, including conciliation conferences where the parties are provided with an opportunity to explore settlement by conciliation.
Applicants are also required to take steps to prepare for the Tribunal hearing of the review. In the present case, Ms Taylor was required to provide the identity of her treating medical practitioners, a written statement of and file any other documentary material that was to be used in support of her application for review. These were sufficiently identified in directions (1) and (3) that were made on 25 July 2025.
There is an evident failure to comply with an order of the Tribunal in the form of directions. Those directions were for the purpose of eliciting material from Ms Taylor that was to be used in evidence to advance her application for review. Her failure to comply with those directions means she has failed to take sufficient steps to proceed with her application.
Ms Taylor has failed several times to respond to communications from the respondent or the Tribunal and has provided no reason for failing to advance her application.
I find that Ms Taylor has failed to comply with an order, or orders, of the Tribunal and has failed to proceed with the application and accordingly, I dismiss the application pursuant to section 100 of the ART Act.
Date of hearing:         9 October 2025
Appearances:
Applicant:                   Did not appear.
Respondent:               Carmen King, McInnes Wilson Lawyers.