Tippett v Australian Postal Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

COMMONWEALTH EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION - administrative law - judicial review - error of law - pain as injury - aggravation of injury - whether pain aggravated by employment

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 14(1)

Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd v Asioty (unreported, Full Court, Federal Court, 26 April 1988) applied
Commonwealth v Beattie (1981) 35 ALR 369 applied
Commonwealth Banking Corporation v Percival (1988) 20 FCR 176 applied
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626 discussed

JUSTIN TIPPETT v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
VG 86 of 1997

FINKELSTEIN J
MELBOURNE
6 APRIL 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 86 of 1997

BETWEEN:

JUSTIN TIPPETT
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 APRIL 1998

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

  1. The appeal is allowed.

  1. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside.

  1. The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law with leave to the parties to adduce further evidence.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VG 86 of 1997

BETWEEN:

JUSTIN TIPPETT
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent

JUDGE:

FINKELSTEIN J

DATE:

6 APRIL 1998

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Mr Tippett (the applicant) is 24 years of age and is a keen and active sportsman.  In the winter he plays football for the Langwarrin Football Club which participates in the Mornington Peninsula Nepean Football League.  In the springtime Mr Tippett plays basketball for the Blackpanthers Basketball Team.

In May 1994 Mr Tippett took up employment with the Australian Postal Corporation (the respondent) at first as a mail sorter and then, from December 1994, as a parcel post officer.  A parcel post officer delivers parcels using a van which is driven by the officer.  Mr Tippett was provided with a Mitsubishi Express van to carry out his duties.  For those who are not familiar with this type of vehicle it is only necessary to note that it has a manual gear box.

During the latter part of 1995 Mr Tippett experienced pain in his left shoulder and went to see his doctor for treatment.  Mr Tippett was told by his doctor that he was suffering from mild rotator cuff impingement of his left shoulder. Neither his doctor nor the physiotherapist he also went to see for further treatment could determine the cause of his injury but each of them expressed the opinion that it may have been aggravated by the repetitive changing of gears that occurred while Mr Tippett was driving his van at work. 
Mr Tippett made a claim for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).  By the Compensation Act compensation is payable to an employee of the Commonwealth and to an employee of certain Commonwealth authorities in respect of an…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Tippett v Australian Postal Corporation 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
[1998] FCA 335
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tippett v Australian Postal Corporation is an appeal against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that dismissed an application for compensation by Mr. Tippett. The dispute concerns a claim for damages Mr. Tippett made against the Australian Postal Corporation (APCO) after he lost his job following an injury sustained at work. The appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the AAT had properly considered the relevant evidence and statutory provisions in making its decision, and whether the AAT's decision was legally sound. The court examined whether the AAT had applied the correct legal principles in its assessment of the evidence and whether it had made any errors of law.

The court found that the AAT had not adequately considered the relevant evidence and statutory provisions in dismissing Mr. Tippett's claim. The court held that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of the applicable legislation and in its weighing of the evidence. The court determined that the AAT had not followed the proper legal process in reaching its decision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the AAT's decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the AAT for reconsideration. The court also granted leave to the parties to adduce further evidence.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The appeal is allowed.

2.

The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside.

3.

The matter be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be heard and determined according to law with leave to the parties to adduce further evidence.

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.