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
ApplicantAND:
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
RespondentJUDGE:
FINKELSTEIN J
DATE OF ORDER:
6 APRIL 1998
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal is allowed.
The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside.
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
ApplicantAND:
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…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [1998] FCA 335
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.