Thomas, Marjorie Edith v The Commonwealth of Australia

[1984] FCA 229

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

FURTHER DISTRIBUTION UNNECESSARY

!

!

I I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTPALIA )

1

VICTORIA D1 STRICT	REGISTRY	)	No.	VG G2 of 1 9 8 2
)

GENERAL D I V I S J O N 1

B E T W E E N :

MARJORIE EDITH THOMAS

Appellant

A N D :

THE COWIONIVERLTII OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent

i	$	31 JULP,	1 9 8 4	KEELY J.
i	l

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

!

HIS HONOUR: On 28 Apr l l 1982 the Admlnls t ra t lve Appeals

T r lbuna l made a d e c l s l o n :

( a ) To se t a s ide t he de t e rmlna t lon o f

3 June 1981; and the same 1 s so

set aslde;

(b) t o rernlt t h e matter t o t h e commlssloner

wl th the d l r e c t l o n s t h a t :

(1) t h e a p p l l c a n t r e m a l n s p a r t i a l l y

i n c a p a c l t e d by I n j u r l e s r e c e l v e d

m the course of her employment ;

(11) t h e a p p l l c a n t 1s a b l e t o d o t h e

work of a dressmaker 111

accordance wl th the appropr l a t e

award I n t h e State o f V l c t o r l a ;

a n d t h e same 1 s so r eml t t ed wl th those

d f r e c t l o n s ;

(c) t o o r d e r t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p a y t h e

a p p l l c a n t ' s costs I n t h e s e p r o c e e d l n g s

In acco rdance wl th the appropr l a t e

s c a l e i n t h e County Court of V l c t o r l a :

I n t h e a b s e n c e of ag reemen t cos t s t o

be taxed by t h e R e g l s t r a r or Deputy

Reglstrar: and the same 1s so ordered ..

The appeal 1s " f rom tha t pa r t o f t he dec i s lon . . .

which d e t e r m n e s t h a t t h e a p p l r c a n t h a s a c a p a c l t y f o r

employment." The no t l ce o f appea l 1 s da ted 1 4 May 1982.

It 1s n o t known why t v o y e a r s e l a p s e d b e f o r e t h e

a p p e l l a n t ' s s o l l c l t o r s s o u g h t a h e a r l n g , b u t It should

be s a l d f o r t h e r e c o r d - t h a t t h e d e l a y I n h a v l n g t h e

matter l l s t e d f o r hearing 1s n o t t h e f a u l t o f t h e

r e g l s t r y o r o f t h e c o u r t .

There i s no th lng to be ga ined by t h e c o u r t

de l ay ing Its d e c l s l o n on t h e a p p e a l , a n d t h e r e is

much t o be s a l d f o r t h e a p p e l l a n t knowlng t h e r e s u l t

of the appeal w l t h o u t f u r t h e r d e l a y so t h a t s h e c a n

cons ide r wha t o the r s t eps are open t o h e r . The appeal

can be de te rmined wl thou t t he need fo r e l abora t e

reasons -

The d l f f l c u l t l e s f a c e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t were

p o l n t e d o u t i n some d e t a l l t o h e r c o u n s e l y e s t e r d a y .

Those d l f f l c u l t l e s stem f r o m t h e n a t u r e o f t h e

e v l d e n c e p l a c e d b e f o r e t h e t r i b u n a l a n d , i n p a r t l c u l a r ,

the absence o f ce r t a ln ev ldence .

The s t a t u t e o n l y p e r m l t s a n a p p e a l t o t h l s

cour t "on a ques t lon of l a w " . The ques t lons o f

law sought to Se r e s o l v e 6 o r l g l n a l l y by t h e n o t l c e

of appeal were as t o w h e t h e r c h e t r l b u n a l erred I n

thocom 31.7.84	108
cp mvs la

making c e r t a l n f i n d l n g s of f a c t , and as t o w h e t h e r lt

should nave made c e r t a l n o t h e r f ~ n d l n g s . I n r e l a t l o n

t o e a c h o f t h o s e f l n d l n g s o f f a c t , I t 1s not open t o

t h l s c o u r t , h e a r i n g a n a p p e a l on a q u e s t l o n of law,

t o form an opln lon on those ques t lons of fac t and

t h e n s u b s t i t u t e l t s opin lon on t h o s e q u e s t i o n s f o r

t h e f l n d l n g s o f f a c t made by t h e t r l b u n a l . The

A u s t r a l i a n P a r l i a m e n t h a s d c c l d e d t h a t t h o s e q u e s t l o n s

o f f a c t a r e t o be determlned by t h e t r l b u n a l , n o t by

i t h l s c o u r t .

A s M r J u s t i c e Ueane s a id I n Commonwealth of

A u s t r a l l a v Lyon (1979) 2 4 A u s t r a l l a n Law Reports 300,

a t 301 t o 302:

The q u e s t l o n f o r m e on t h i s a p p e a l 1 s

n o t w h e t h e r , l n my o p i n i o n , t h a t f i n d l n g

was t h e c o r r e c t or pre fe rab le one . The

q u e s t i o n f o r me on t h i s a p p e a l is whether

t h e r e was a p rope r f o u n d a t i o n I n t h e

e v l d e n c e f o r It. See Davldson v Mould

(1943) 44 State Reports New South Wales 113,

a t 115; Department of Health v Clancy

! 1961 Workers Compensatlon Reports (New

South !7ales) 233, a t 235.

The a p p e l l a n t , I n c r d e r t o s u c c e e d o n o n e or more of

! h e r g r o u n d s o f a p p e a l , m u s t s a t l s f y t h e c o u r t t h a t

t h e f l n d l n g o f fact r r a s n o t o n e t h a t a reasonable

trlbunal could have made on the ev idence be fo re It.

See Simons v Herald and	Weekly T u n e s Llmlted 1979
Vlctor lan Reports 131,	a t 136 p e r t h e C h l e f J u s t l c e

S i r Henry Wlnneke,	M r J u s t i c e Gowans	and	M r J u s t l c e
G i l l a r d .

The o r i g l n a l g r o u n d s of a p p e a l o v e r l a p t o some

ex ten t ,	and	are as fo l lows:
t h a t t h e t r i b u n a l erred I n l a w I n
f m d i n g t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t was
n o t t o t a l l y i n c a p a c l t a t e d f o r w o r k ;
t h a t t h e t r l b u n a l erred I n law i n
n o t f i n d i n g t h e a p p l l c a n t t o b e a n
"odd l o t " , a n d h e n c e i n c a p a b l e o f
g a l n f u l employment or alternatively
"deemed t o be t o t a l l y m c a p a c l t a t e d
f o r work" p u r s u a n t t o s e c t l o n 26
Compensatlon (Commonwealth Government
Employees) A c t 1971:
t h a t t h e t r i b u n a l e r r e d I n l a w i n t h a t
t h e r e was no evldence t o s u p p o r t t h e
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t i s a b l e t o
d o t h e work of a dressmaker and/or can
ea rn an equ lva len t sum as a dressmaker
employed under an l n d u s t r l a l award of
t h e S ta te o f V lc to r l a ;

thocom 31.7.84 109

. cp mvs 2 a

(d ) t ha t even lf t h e t r l b u n a i was

c o r r e c t l n f i n d l n g t h e a p p l l c a n t

t o b e p a r t l a l l y l n c a p a c l c a t e d f o r

I work t h e e v l d e n c e r e q u l r e d t h e

f l n d l n g t h a t s h e 1 s capable of only

part-t lme work.

A s t h e d l f f l c u l t l e s s t a n d l n g I n t h e way o f t hose

grounds of appeal were ralsed w l t h t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

counse l yes t e rday , l t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o r e f e r t o

them I n great detal l . A s t o ground ( a ) , there was

medlcal e v l d e n c e t h a t t h e a p p l i c a n t was n o t t o t a l l y

l n c a p a c l t a t e d f o r work. It 1 s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o

r e f e r t o a l l t h a t e v l d e n c e , b u t It Included evldence

by D r McKenzle and by D r S t e p h e n s t h a t , a s f a r as

h e r p h y s l c a l 1 n J u r l e s a r e c o n c e r n e d , t h e a p p l l c a n t

was capable of undertaklng work w h c h d l d no t Invo lve

r e p e t l t l v e b e n d l n g or h e a v y l i f t l n g . I n s o f a r a s t h e

a p p e l l a c t s o u g h t t o r e l y upon non-phys lca l aspec ts

o f h e r c o n d l t l o n , D r Slme sal6 I n a r e p o r t t h a t ,

" t h e r e i s probably he lghtened anxle ty whlch may be

c o n t r l b u t l n g t o some degree of fur?c t lona l over lay" ,

but he thought lt was " f a l r ly mln lma l" .

F u r t h e r , i n h l s o r a l e v l d e n c e Dr Slme said,

"I wou ld ca t egor l ca l ly s ta te , I n my o p l n l o n , t h a t

she 1s n o t s u f f e r l n g f r o m a n e u r o s i s . " I n t h e l i g h t

o f t he ev ldence p l aced be fo re the t r i buna l g round	(a)
of the appea l cannot succeed .

As t o ground ( b ) , I n m y o p l n i o n t h e ORUS was

upon t h e a p p l l c a n t t o s a t l s f y t h e t r l b u n a l t h a t s h e

f e l l w l t h l n o n e o r o t h e r of t h e two c a t e g o r l e s

r e f e r r e d t o I n t h a t g r o u n d . I n my o p l n l o n t h e

evldence placed b e f o r e t h e t r l b u n a l d l d n o t compel i t ,

as a matter of law, t o h o l d t h a t It was s a t i s f l e d

as t o e l t h e r of t h o s e matters.

The app l l can t gave ev ldence tha t abou t 30 y e a r s

before the hear lng she had per formed drcssmaklng :rork

f o r o n e or two y e a r s i n a f a c t o r y i n F o o t s c r a y . Her

d e s c r l p t i o n of t h a t work d l d n o t I n c l u d e a s t a t emen t

t h a t t h a t work would now be beyond her phys lca l

c a p a b l l l t i e s o r t h a t s h e would be prevented by paln

from performmg It; of course I t may be t h a t t h a t work

would prove t o be beyond h e r c a p a b i l l t l e s I f It were

a v a l l a b l e t o h e r a n d s h e t r ied t o p e r f o m it. A maJor

d l f f l c u l t y f a c l n g t h e p r e s e n t a p p e l l a n t 1s t h a t t h e r e

w a s n o e v l d e n c e t o t h a t e f f e c t b e f o r e t h e t r l b u n a l .

I n a d d l t l o n t h e a p p l l c a n t g a v e e v l d e n c e b e f o r e t h e

t r l b u n a l t h a t s h e h a d d o n e sew1r.g a t home u n t l l

a b o u t f l v e y e a r s b e f o r e t h e t r l b u n a l h e a r l n g , a l t h o u g h

t h e detal ls of t h a t work a r e n o t clear. Ground (b)

must f a l l .

thocorn 31.1.	a 4	110
cp mvs 3a

Ground (c) IS, t o some e x t e n t l l n k e d w i t h t

ground (a). The evlc?ence as t o t h e d r e s s m a k l n g work

I n t h e f a c t o r y was r a t h e r b r i e f . I n p a r t l c u l a r t h s I

a p p l l c a n t ' s e v l d e n c e , as I have s a d , d i d n o t lnclL1de

a s t a t e m e n t t h a t s h e x a s u n a b l e t o p e r 5 o r . x t h a t work

now. The appe l l an t ' s counse l con tended t hz t such a

s ta tement should be I n f e r r e d f r o m t h e a p p e l l a n t ' s

ev ldence . However the , t r lbupal d ld no t d raw tha t

l n fe rence and I a m n o t p r e p a r e d t o h o l d t h a t t h e

t r l b u n a l was r e q u l r e d , a s a matter of law, t o draw

such an in fe rence .

I t should , however , be poln ted out tha t the

t r l b u n a l , on my r e a d l n g o f t h e l as t sen tence of Its

r e a s o n s f o r d e c i s l o n , c o n t e m p l a t e d t h e p o s s i b l l l t y

t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t may s u c c e e d i n s a t l s f y i n g t h e

d e l e g a t e t h a t s h e 1 s no t "ab le to do" d re s smak lng

work for an employer . Her i n a b l l l t y may be by

reason of p a m or by l l m l t a t l o n o f movement or s h e

may be u n a b l e t o f l n d any such employment. The

d e c l s l o n on t h l s a p p e a l wlll n o t o p e r a t e t o p r e v e n t

h e r from e x p l o r l n g t h a t p o s s l b i l l t y a n d p l a c l n g

any such ev ldence before the de lega te vhen the

matter 1 s r e m t t e d t o hlm In acco rda l l ce wl th the . .

tribunal's d e c i s l o n .

As t o g round (d l , on a c a r e f u l c o n s l d e r a t l o n

o f t h e e v l d e n c e b e f o r e t h e t r l b u n a l I do no t cons lde r

t h a t t h a t e v l d e n c e " r e q u l r e d t h e f i n d l n g t h a t s h e 1s

capable of only part-time work." However, it may well

be t h a t t h e d e l e g a t e wlll reach such a conclu- a l o n on

! c o n s l d e r l n g new e v l d e n c e o r h e may c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e

a p p l l c a n t 1s not capable of even par t - t ine work I f

he has ev ldence before h im - which was no t p l aced

b e f o r e t h e t r l b u n a l - th -a t , us lng the words of the

t r l b u n a l i n t h e l a s t s e n t e n c e of I ts r e a s o n s , t h e

a p p l l c a n t h a s , " f a l l e d t o f l n d work she 1s a b l e t o do".

This rnornmg the appel lan t was g r a n t e d l e a v e ,

w l thou t o b j e c t l o n by the r e sponden t , t o amend i ts

grounds of appeal by addlng the fo l lowing grounds :

(e) t h a t t h e t r i b u n a l , h a v i n g c o n c l u d e d

t h a t t h e a p p l l c a n t may have been

able t o work a s a dressmal:er, erred

i n law In no t o f f e r lng an adJournmen t

or g l v l n g t h e partles an oppor tuni ty

t o lead f u r t h e r e v l d e n c e r e g a r d l n g

t h e d u t i e s o f a dressmaker and/or

t h e p o s s i b l l l t y o f t h e a p p e l l a n t

f i nd lng such work.

( f ) t h a t t h e t r i b u n a l e r r e d I n law i n n o t

d e t e r m l n l n g a l l matters b e f o r e It and

r e f e r r l n g t h e matter back t o t h e

de l ega te wl thou t	a	d e c l s l o n on	such
matters.

thocom 31.7.84 111

Jgs mvs 4 a

.

Ground (e) f a i l s b e c a u s e , in my op ln ion ,

t h e r e was no duty In lay.: on t h e t r l b u n a l t o t a k e

e l t h e r o f t h e two c o u r y e s r e f e r r e d t o I n t h a t g r o u n d .

Ground ( f ) was s a l d t o be complementary to grounc (e )

and It f a i l s f o r s u b s t z n t l a l l y t h e same reason.

The a p p e l l a n t ' s c o u n s e l i e f e r r e d t o t h e n e e d t o

amend paragraph 3 of t h e n o t i c e o f a p p e a l , by

formula t lng two a d d l t l o n a l q u e s t l o n s o f l a w r a l s l n g

t h e m a t t e r s r e f e r r e d to I n new grounds (e ) and ( f ) ,

b u t t h e terms of those add i t io r , a l ques t lons o f la!:

have	not	been	formulated.
A s	each of t h e Grounds cf appeal has fa l led,

t h e a p p e a l must be d lsmlssed and the dec ls ion of

t h e t r l b u n a l a f f i r m e d . C o u n s e l f o r b o t h p a r t l e s

were l n agreement t h a t c v s t s s h o u l d f o l l o w t h e e v e n t .

Accord ingly , the formal o rder o f the cour t is, (l)

t h e a p p e a l 1 s dismissed. ( 2 ) The d e c l s l o n of t h e

t r l b u n a l 1s aff i rmed. ( 3 ) The appel lan t MarJOr le

Ed l th Thomas s h a l l pay t o t h e r e s p o n d e n t , Commonwealth

of A u s t r a l i a , I ts cos t s o f t he zppea l wh lch cos t s

s h a l l , I n t he absence o f ag remen t -be tween the

p a r t i e s , be t axed by t h e Reglstrar.

Any matters a r i s l n g out of tha t , gent lemen?

. MR WHEELER: Perhaps as an excess of cau t ion I wonder I f y o u r

,	<	Honour would	reserve	liberty	t o a p p l y ?
i .

HIS HOYO'JR: Certainly.

MR WHEELER: Simply l n r e i a t l o n t o the de lega te , ue rhaps

c o n s l d e r l n g t h e matter I n the fu tu re . A l though I

subml t t ed the re 1s n o o b j e c t i o n t o it - - -

HIS HONOUR:	I f o l l m ?	t h a t .	Any	o b j e c t l o n ,	M	r	Lenczner?
-

MR LENCZNER: No objec t lon .

..

I HIS HONOUR: I w l l l add t o t h e f o r m a l o r d e r ( 4 ) l l b e r t y

r e s e r v e d t o e a c h p a r t y t o a p p l y .

AT 3.25 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

INDEFINITELY

thocom 31.7.84 13 2

JgS mvs 5a - _

!

I