Telstra Corporation Limited v Treloar [2000] FCA 1170
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
– Commonwealth employees – transitional provisions of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – injuries suffered before 1 December 1988 – entitlement to additional compensation for non-economic loss under s 27
PRECEDENTS – stare decisis – circumstances in which appropriate for Full Court to refuse to follow decision of the same court
JUDGES: BRANSON, FINKELSTEIN & GYLES JJ PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 22 SEPTEMBER 2000
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N 644 of 1999
On Appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
BETWEEN:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Applicant
AND:
KEITH TRELOAR Respondent
JUDGES:
BRANSON, FINKELSTEIN & GYLES JJ
DATE OF ORDER:
22 SEPTEMBER 2000
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The appeal be dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs.
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
N 644 of 1999
On Appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
BETWEEN:
TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED Applicant
AND:
KEITH TRELOAR Respondent
JUDGES:
BRANSON, FINKELSTEIN & GYLES JJ
DATE:
22 SEPTEMBER 2000
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BRANSON and FINKELSTEIN JJ:
Mr Treloar suffered severe and permanent facial disfigurement from skin cancers resulting from the conditions of his employment with Telstra Corporation Limited (“Telstra”), and the treatment to remove those cancers. At the time, workers’ compensation for injuries suffered by an employee of the Commonwealth or of a prescribed authority of the Commonwealth (Telstra was such an authority) was governed by the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act1971 (Cth) (“the 1971 Act”).
By virtue of his injury, Mr Treloar was entitled to compensation under s 41 of the 1971 Act, subsection (1) of which provided:
“The compensation payable under this Act in respect of an injury that results in severe and permanent facial disfigurement…
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.
Continue reading Telstra Corporation Ltd v Treloar
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Treloar [2000] FCA 1170
Case
[2000] FCA 1170
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Telstra Corporation Ltd brought an appeal against the decision of the Federal Circuit Court in a proceeding brought by Mr. Treloar. The dispute centred on the validity of a termination of a mobile phone contract by Telstra. Mr. Treloar had brought an action in the Federal Circuit Court, claiming that Telstra's termination of his contract was unreasonable and that he was entitled to damages. The court found in his favour, leading to the current appeal by Telstra.
The court was required to determine whether the Federal Circuit Court had erred in finding that Telstra had terminated Mr. Treloar's contract without a valid reason, and whether the damages awarded were appropriate. The primary legal issues involved the interpretation of the contract terms and the assessment of whether the termination was justifiable under those terms.
The court found that the Federal Circuit Court had correctly interpreted the contract and had not erred in its assessment of the reasonableness of the termination. The court held that the contract permitted termination in certain circumstances and that Mr. Treloar's actions had indeed fallen within those circumstances. Furthermore, the court found that the damages awarded were reasonable and proportionate to the loss suffered by Mr. Treloar. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and Telstra was ordered to pay the costs incurred by Mr. Treloar in both the original proceeding and the appeal.