Telstra Corporation Limited v Mahon - [2004] FCA 1404

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Telstra Corporation Limited v Mahon [2004] FCA 1404
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – review of Administrative Appeals Tribunal decision – error of law – construction of Tribunal decision - whether Tribunal gave sufficient reasons
ESTOPPEL – where respondent filed a notice of contention - whether the Tribunal or the applicant is estopped from revoking a decision to pay the respondent worker’s compensation – where the applicant has by receiving compensation waived his common law rights to sue for non-economic loss – the Tribunal and applicant are not bound by an estoppel
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act1975 (Cth) s 43(1)
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 62, s 62(1), s 62(5) s 62 s 24 s 27, s 45, s16(1)
Adelaide Stevedoring & Co Pty Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 179 CLR 1
Bramwell v Repatriation Commission (1998) 158 ALR 623
Brickworks Ltd v Council of the Shire of Warringah (1963) 108 CLR 568
Formosa v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1988) 46 FCR 117
Hu v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 63 Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Power v Comcare (1998) 89 FCR 514
Repatriation Commission v Crane [2004] FCAFC 86
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 051 775 556) v CHRISTOPHER JOHN MAHON
NSD556 OF 2004
BENNETT J
29 OCTOBER 2004
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD556 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)
APPLICANT

AND:

CHRISTOPHER JOHN MAHON
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE OF ORDER:

29 OCTOBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application be dismissed.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NSD556 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN:

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED
(ACN 051 775 556)
APPLICANT

AND:

CHRISTOPHER JOHN MAHON
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

BENNETT J

DATE:

29 OCTOBER 2004

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This is an appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).
The decision of the Tribunal
It was agreed before the Tribunal and is agreed before me that the determination by a delegate of the applicant (‘Telstra’) of 23 May 2002 that was before the Tribunal consisted of two decisions, one valid and the other invalid. The valid decision was a reconsideration by the delegate’s own motion under s 62(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (‘the SRC Act’) of a determination of 27 November 2001 (‘the November determination’) and substitution of a determination that Telstra was not liable to pay compensation in respect of ‘multiple soft tissue injuries to right knee, both forearms and lower back’. The invalid step was to purport to revoke a reviewable decision of 10 April 2002.
The Tribunal, it is agreed, correctly identified…

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 Telstra Corporation Limited v Mahon 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: [2004] FCA 1404
Decision Date: 29 OCTOBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by Telstra Corporation Limited, contesting a decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) regarding a reconsideration of a liability determination under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The respondent, Mahon, had previously sustained multiple soft tissue injuries in an incident on 21 January 1997, for which Telstra was initially found liable to pay compensation. Over time, several determinations were made regarding Mahon's condition and compensation, culminating in a reconsideration by Telstra on 23 May 2002. This reconsideration consisted of two parts: a valid reconsideration of a prior determination from 27 November 2001, and an invalid attempt to revoke a reviewable decision from 10 April 2002.

The court had to decide whether the Tribunal correctly identified and reviewed the valid reconsideration and whether the invalid revocation of the 10 April 2002 decision affected the validity of the overall reconsideration. The key legal issues revolved around the interpretation of section 62(5) of the SRC Act, which governs the reconsideration process, and the procedural correctness of the Tribunal’s decision in handling the mixed nature of the reconsideration decision. The court also had to examine whether the invalid step in the reconsideration process rendered the entire reconsideration invalid or if it could be separated from the valid reconsideration.

The court held that the Tribunal correctly identified the matter before it as the valid review of the November determination, focusing on the valid reconsideration while disregarding the invalid revocation. The court emphasised that the reconsideration was procedurally valid and substantively correct, and that the invalid step did not vitiate the entire reconsideration. The court found that the Tribunal did not err in its handling of the reconsideration, and that the invalid step was separable from the valid reconsideration, which was the primary focus of the appeal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Tribunal was affirmed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

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

BENNETT J (dissent)

This is an appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’).The decision of the Tribunal It was agreed before the Tribunal and is agreed before me that the determination by a delegate of the applicant (‘Telstra’) of 23 May 2002 that was before the Tribunal consisted of two decisions, one valid and the other invalid. The valid decision was a reconsideration by the delegate’s own motion under s 62(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (‘the SRC Act’) of a determination of 27 November 2001 (‘the November determination’) and substitution of a determination that Telstra was not liable to pay compensation in respect of ‘multiple soft tissue injuries to right knee, both forearms and lower back’. The invalid step was to purport to revoke a reviewable decision of 10 April 2002. The Tribunal, it is agreed, correctly identified the matter before it as the valid review of the November determination. That was the way that the matter proceeded before the Tribunal and before me. The November determination had approved ongoing weekly benefits to the respondent for the injury described as ‘multiple soft tissue injuries to right knee, both forearms and lower back’. The reconsideration pursuant to s 62 of the SRC Act was in respect of the same subject matter. The officer relevantly determined:‘1.That the determination dated 27 November 2001 and the reviewable decision dated 10 April 2002 are revoked pursuant to section 62(5) of the SRC Act;2.I determine that the claimant no longer suffers from a right knee condition related to his previous employment with Telstra as a result of the incident on 21 January 1997.’ The chronology is relevantly as follows:· The date of injury, the subject of the determination, was 21 January 1997 (‘the January injury’).· On 7 February 1997, a determination was made that Mr Mahon sustained a personal injury, namely multiple soft tissue injuries to his right knee, both forearms and low back ‘for which Telstra… is liable to pay compensation’.· On 15 October 1998, there was a determination under s 24 and s 27 of the SRC Act as to whole body impairment. At this time, Mr Mahon was asked to make an election under s 45 of the SRC Act either to receive compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss or to institute an action or proceeding against the Commonwealth for any non-economic loss suffered as a result of the injury. Mr Mahon was asked to sign, and did sign, a form saying that he understood that this election was irrevocable. · On 27 November 2001, the November determination was made.· On 11 February 2002, a determination was made that, in accordance with the provisions of s 16(1) of the SRC Act, compensation was not payable to Mr Mahon in respect of total knee replacement.· On 5 March 2002, Mr Mahon requested a reconsideration of the determination of 11 February 2002.· On 10 April 2002, Telstra reconsidered the determination of 11 February 2002, pursuant to s 62(5) of the SRC Act, finding that Telstra was liable to pay compensation in respect of the total knee replacement.· On 23 May 2002, Telstra conducted a re-consideration pursuant to s 62 of the SRC Act. The determination was that the November determination and the reviewable decision of 10 April 2002 were revoked pursuant to s 62(5) of the SRC Act.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by:

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD556 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED (ACN 051 775 556) APPLICANT
AND:	CHRISTOPHER JOHN MAHON RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	29 OCTOBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

JUDGE:	BENNETT J
DATE:	29 OCTOBER 2004
PLACE:	SYDNEY