Taylor v Australian Postal Corporation

Mieme Taylor (‘Ms Taylor’) brought an application against Australian Postal Corporation (‘Australia Post’) concerning the suspension of her entitlement to compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (1988) (Cth) (‘the Act’). Ms Taylor suffered a work-related injury on 24 May 1993, and her entitlement to compensation was suspended from 2 May 2004 to 10 June 2004 because she failed to attend a medical appointment with Dr Pierides on 16 April 2004. The reason for her non-attendance was a dispute over whether Australia Post should supply her with cab charge vouchers to cover her travel to and from the appointment. Ms Taylor sought a declaration that she had a reasonable excuse for refusing to undergo the medical examination, or, in the alternative, a declaration that her entitlement to compensation was not lawfully suspended pursuant to s 57(2) of the Act.

The legal issues in this case centred around the interpretation of s 57 of the Act, which deals with the power to require medical examinations and the suspension of compensation entitlements in cases of non-attendance without reasonable excuse. The primary issue was whether Ms Taylor had a reasonable excuse for not attending the medical appointment, and if not, whether the suspension of her compensation entitlement was lawful. The court also needed to consider the matters that the relevant authority should have regard to in deciding questions arising under subsection (3), including the means of transport available to the employee for the journey, the route or routes by which the employee could have travelled, and the accommodation available to the employee.

The court found that it could not be said to have been unreasonable for Australia Post to urge that the question of costs be decided on 1 September 2004. The court emphasised that not every procedural dispute between parties would result in costs consequences determined on an adversarial basis, where the court takes the course supported by one party and opposed by the other. The court concluded that neither party appeared to have acted unreasonably and that it was not confident of the result of a final hearing. Therefore, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs, leaving each party to bear its own costs.