Telstra Corporation Limited v Hunter

Link copied
Case Copied 34 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Telstra Corporation Limited v Hunter [2016] FCA 318

Appeal from: Maurice Hunter v Telstra Corporation [2015] AATA 218
File number: QUD 325 of 2015
Judge: COLLIER J
Date of judgment: 1 April 2016
Catchwords:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – compensation under s 14 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the SRC Act) – s 5A(1) and (2) SRC Act – “injury” – “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment” – perception of overwork – Wiegand v Comcare Australia [2002] FCA 1464; 72 ALD 795

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review of decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether Tribunal failed to provide adequate reasons pursuant to s 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) – whether Tribunal erred in applying s 5A(1) SRC Act – whether Tribunal failed to consider effect of evidence
Legislation:

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 43(2), 43(2B), 44

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 5A, 5A(1), 5A(1)(c), 5B, 14
Cases cited:

Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184; 75 ALD 630

Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280

Commissioner of Taxation v Osborne (1990) 26 FCR 63

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve (2012) 199 FCR 463

Drenth v Comcare [2012] FCAFC 86; 128 ALD 1

Ekinci v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCAFC 180

Hart v Comcare (2005) 145 FCR 29

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259

Reece v Webber (2011) 192 FCR 254

Repatriation Commission v Hendy [2002] FCAFC 424; 76 ALD 47

Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations v Homewood [2006] FCA 779; 91 ALD 103

Wiegand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464; 72 ALD 795

Yao v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 17
Date of hearing: 20 October 2015
Registry: Queensland
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 88
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr CJ Clark
Solicitor for the Applicant: DLA Piper Australia
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr M Black
Solicitor for the Respondent: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

ORDERS

QUD 325 of 2015
BETWEEN:

TELSTRA CORPORATIONS LIMITED (ABN 33 051 775 556)

Applicant
AND:

MAURICE HUNTER

Respondent

JUDGE:

COLLIER J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 APRIL 2016

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application filed 11 May 2015 be dismissed with costs.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLLIER J:

  1. In this application filed 11 May 2015 Telstra Corporation Ltd (Telstra) appeals against the whole of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) of 13 April 2015 (Maurice Hunter v Telstra Corporation [2015] AATA 218), wherein the Tribunal found that the respondent Mr Hunter was entitled to compensation under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the SRC Act

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Telstra Corporation Limited v Hunter 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
[2016] FCA 318
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Telstra Corporation Limited v Hunter was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. Hunter, a former employee of Telstra, sought compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) for a major depressive disorder he claimed was caused by his employment with Telstra. Telstra contested Hunter's claim, arguing that his depression was not the result of his employment but rather predated any administrative action taken by the company. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal had previously ruled in Hunter's favour, but Telstra appealed that decision to the Federal Court, seeking a review of the Tribunal's findings and reasoning.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and whether it erred in its interpretation of the term "injury" under the SRC Act, specifically in relation to the concept of "reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner." The Court also needed to determine if the Tribunal had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, as required by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), and whether it had properly considered the evidence presented.

In its judgment, the Court found that the Tribunal had correctly applied the principle from Wiegand v Comcare Australia, recognising that a worker's perception of overwork could constitute an "injury" under the SRC Act if it contributed significantly to their condition. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that Hunter genuinely perceived his workload as high and stressful, and that this perception contributed significantly to his depression. The Court also confirmed that the Tribunal had not erred in its application of the relevant statutory provisions and had adequately considered the evidence, including the psychiatric evidence supporting Hunter's claim.

The Court dismissed Telstra's appeal, affirming the Tribunal's decision in Hunter's favour. It held that the Tribunal had correctly resolved the factual question of causation against Telstra, finding that Hunter's depression was a result of the relevant administrative action taken by Telstra. The Court ordered that Telstra's application filed on 11 May 2015 be dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application filed 11 May 2015 be dismissed with costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

On 26 June 2014 Dr Helen Siddle, a consultant psychiatrist, conducted an independent medical assessment of Mr Hunter, and provided a report dated 1 July 2014.Decision of the Tribunal The Tribunal accepted at the outset that Mr Hunter had suffered from a major depressive disorder or episode. Referring to s 5A and s 5B of the SRC Act, the Tribunal said at [5] that the primary issues before it were:(a)whether Mr Hunter’s depression was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment; and(b)if so, whether his condition was the result of reasonable administrative action, taken in a reasonable manner. At [6] the Tribunal observed:As a project manager Mr Hunter was generally responsible for 10 to 15 projects at a time. Fellow employees, as well as Mr Hunter, said that the work could be mentally demanding. Issues could arise requiring urgent attention, and involving a degree of pressure.(Footnotes omitted.) In so observing the Tribunal referred to evidence of Mr Hunter’s colleagues Ms Stephens, Mr Paraskevopoulos and Mr Violo. The Tribunal found (at [7]) that there was contemporaneous evidence that Mr Hunter believed he had a stressful workload, referring in particular to references to work stress and to time absent from work in the notes of Mr Hunter’s general practitioner Dr Springfield. The Tribunal observed that Telstra’s records also contained references to Mr Hunter expressing concern with the volume and pressure of his work, including his ability to comply with or complete administrative processes (at [8]), and at [9] noted evidence of Ms Stephens that Mr Hunter had complained about his workload during 2012 and 2013. The Tribunal found that Mr Hunter was an honest witness. It dismissed Telstra’s submission that various matters (including Telstra’s contention that other project managers had more work than Mr Hunter and that Telstra had offered to reduce his workload) reflected badly on Mr Hunter’s credibility such that his claim should not be accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal referred to psychiatric evidence which supported Mr Hunter’s case and continued:19.It is not necessary that Mr Hunter’s workload was objectively excessive. I find that he did genuinely perceive that he had a high and stressful workload, and this perception was based on the fact that he was undertaking a project management workload.20.I am also satisfied that this perception contributed, to a significant degree, to his depression. I also find that the onset of the condition was in or around April 2010. In making its statement at [19] in relation to Mr Hunter’s workload the Tribunal relied on the decision of the Federal Court in Wiegand v Comcare [2002] FCA 1464; 72 ALD 795 (Wiegand) at [24] where the Court said:24.It will be noted that Kitto J does not introduce any qualification or refinement to the meaning to be given to ‘employment’ which would require some qualitative assessment of the incident or state of affairs to which the worker was exposed which would limit the meaning to an incident or state of affairs that could be characterised as a breach of reasonable workplace practices, discriminatory conduct, harassment, unlawful conduct, or conduct of a kind that a reasonable employer would guard against. All that is required is that the employee is exposed to some incident or state of affairs in the course of the performance of his duties and to which he would not otherwise have been exposed, which is a contributing factor to the ailment or an aggravation of the ailment suffered by the employee. A perception held by the employee will meet a ‘reality’ test for the purpose of the definition of disease if it is a perception about an incident or state of affairs that actually happened.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Mr Hunter’s case was, in summary, as follows:·The Tribunal correctly applied the principle arising in Wiegand.·The Tribunal was correct to observe that it was not necessary that Mr Hunter’s workload was objectively excessive.·In finding that the onset of Mr Hunter’s depression was in or around April 2010, the Tribunal referred to the evidence of Dr Springfield, Dr Morris and Dr Siddle.·In relation to Mr Hunter’s claim to being overworked, the Tribunal found that Mr Hunter was a project manager who was generally responsible for 10 to 15 projects at a time, relying on evidence of Mr Hunter as well as evidence of witnesses Ms Stephens, Mr Paraskevopoulos and Mr Violo.·In relation to the Tribunal’s findings concerning the role of the performance management processes as causative factors in the onset of Mr Hunter’s psychiatric condition, the Tribunal found as a fact that the onset of Mr Hunter’s depression pre-dated the administrative action, relying on evidence to that effect.·The test in s 5A was whether Mr Hunter’s depression was a result of the relevant administrative action, namely the various performance management processes identified. The Tribunal resolved the factual question of causation against Telstra.Consideration This appeal before the Court has been brought by Telstra pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act). Such appeals lie only on questions of law, and lies in the original jurisdiction of the Court.Ground 1 In ground 1 of the appeal Telstra claimed that the Tribunal erred in referring to Wiegand and ascribing importance to a finding that Mr Hunter had a “perception” that he was overworked. In dealing with ground 1 it is useful to examine the decision in Wiegand in some detail.Wiegand In Wiegand the applicant worked for the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO). On 12 May 1998 he claimed compensation in respect of “major depression”. He asserted that a number of events which occurred in the course of his employment with the ATO contributed to his condition, including “defamation and victimisation in 1990”. The applicant’s claim was pursuant to s 14 of the SRC Act. Materially, the terms of s 14 of the SRC Act and the definition of “injury” in the SRC Act considered by the Court in Wiegand have remained unchanged. The issue for determination by the Court in Wiegand was whether the applicant’s ailment, or an aggravation of the ailment, “was contributed to in a material degree by the employee’s employment” with the ATO. Medical evidence before the Tribunal in Wiegand was that the applicant’s depression had developed as a result of the impact of injustices and imperfections of the workplace as perceived by the applicant. The ATO rejected the applicant’s application for compensation. On review of the ATO decision, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s condition could not materially be attributed to his work at the ATO, and affirmed the ATO decision to deny liability to pay compensation.