TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED v. FREDERICK JAMES WARNER
No. VG467 of 1993
FED No. 622/94
Number of pages - 10
Worker's Compensation
(1994) 20 AAR 259
COURT
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
HEEREY J
CATCHWORDS
Worker's Compensation - compensation payments under Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 - whether injured worker an "employee" or "former employee" - whether injured worker "able to earn in suitable employment" - worker in receipt of pension under superannuation scheme - calculation of rate of compensation payable
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss.4(1)(9), 5(1)(9), 14(1), 19(1)(4), 123, 124(1)(1A), 131(1)(2), 132A(1)-(4)
HEARING
MELBOURNE, 25 July and 30 August 1994
#DATE 6:9:1994, ADELAIDE
Counsel for the applicant: Mr J E Barnard QC with Mr G Harris
Solicitor for the applicant: Hunt and Hunt
Counsel for the respondent: Mr S B Spittle
Solicitor for the respondent: McMullin Coate and Co
ORDER
The Court orders:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 7
October 1993 set aside.
3. Order that the application be remitted for calculation of the rate
of compensation payable to the respondent under s.132A of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in accordance with these reasons for judgment.
4. No order as to costs.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
JUDGE1
Introduction
HEEREY J On 1 December 1988 (the commencing day) the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the 1988 Act) came into operation. The respondent Frederick James Warner (Mr Warner) had suffered injury in the course of his employment with the applicant's predecessor Australian and Overseas Telecommunications Corporation (Telecom). He had ceased employment with Telecom before the commencing day. This appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) raises the question as to which provisions of the 1988 Act apply to the calculation of Mr Warner's compensation. Relevant provisions of the 1988 Act are appended to these reasons for judgment.
Background
2. Mr Warner is aged 52. He commenced employment with Telecom in about 1968 as a linesman. In the course of that employment, and in particular between August 1974 and August 1978, he suffered a number of episodes of back pain which caused and/or aggravated a lumbo-sacral disc injury. Mr Warner reported the episodes and made claims for compensation which were accepted by Telecom.
Mr Warner has not worked since August 1978. Soon thereafter he was retired by Telecom on the grounds of invalidity. In addition to the payments for compensation for incapacity under the compensation legislation then in force, the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (the 1971 Act), Mr Warner qualified for and still receives a pension under a superannuation scheme. Mr Warner continued to receive weekly payments of compensation after the commencing day: see 1988 Act, s.124(1A).
On 22 November 1989 a delegate of Telecom issued a determination under the 1988 Act finding that Telecom was not liable to…
Continue reading Telstra Corporation Limited v Warner
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Telstra Corporation Limited v Warner [1994] FCA 622 ((1994) 20 AAR 259)
- Case
- [1994] FCA 622
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included determining Warner's employment status and whether his receipt of a superannuation pension affected his eligibility for compensation. Furthermore, the court needed to ascertain if Warner was indeed "able to earn in suitable employment" given his circumstances. The court was tasked with interpreting the relevant provisions of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) to decide these questions. The primary focus was on the interpretation of the term "employee" and the meaning of "suitable employment" within the context of the Act.
The court examined the statutory language and relevant precedents to arrive at its decision. It found that Warner's status as a "former employee" and his ability to earn in suitable employment were pivotal to his compensation claim. The court noted that Warner's receipt of a superannuation pension did not necessarily disqualify him from receiving compensation under the Act. Additionally, the court held that the calculation of the compensation rate should be based on the provisions of section 132A of the Act. As a result, the court concluded that the determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was flawed and required correction.
The Federal Court ordered that the determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside and that the matter be remitted for the proper calculation of the compensation rate under section 132A of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The appeal was allowed, and no order was made as to costs. The case underscored the importance of precise statutory interpretation in determining the eligibility and extent of compensation payable to injured workers.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Determination of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 7
October 1993 set aside.
3. Order that the application be remitted for calculation of the rate
of compensation payable to the respondent under s.132A of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) in accordance with these reasons for judgment.
4. No order as to costs.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.