WORKERS COMPENSATION - Commonwealth government employees’ compensation - stress related nervous condition caused by frequent transfers and failure to be appointed to permanent position - whether injury suffered as a result of “failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with her employment” within the meaning of s 4 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Cth) - whether entitlement as of right can be “benefit”
JUDGE: HEEREY J DATE: 19 JUNE 1998 PLACE: MELBOURNE (HEARD IN HOBART)
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 292 of 1997
BETWEEN:
ROSELIE TREWIN APPLICANT
AND:
COMCARE RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER:
19 JUNE 1998
WHERE MADE:
MELBOURNE (HEARD IN HOBART)
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The application is dismissed.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, including reserved costs.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
VG 292 of1997
BETWEEN:
ROSELIE TREWIN APPLICANT
AND:
COMCARE RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
HEEREY J
DATE:
19 JUNE 1998
PLACE:
MELBOURNE (HEARD IN HOBART)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
This appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Mr B H Pascoe, Senior Member, and Brigadier C Ermert, Member challenges a finding that the applicant’s injury was suffered “as a result of ... failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with ... her employment” within the meaning of s 4 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act).
Evidence before the Tribunal At the time of the hearing in March 1997 the applicant was aged 38. She was a single parent with a daughter aged nine years. Since 1986 she has been employed as a clerk by the Commonwealth in the Department of Defence. Her classification was ASO1.
After the birth of her child she returned to work full time in February 1988. After some three years in one position she was transferred to several different sections within the Air Force. She was then transferred to a new section in St Kilda Road. In this section she had no regular duties. There were constant moves and changes of supervisors, all of which she found very stressful. In May 1993 her general practitioner referred her to Dr Peter Drysdale, a psychiatrist. He provided counselling but no medication. She ceased visits after a year because she found the travelling difficult.
In February 1993 the applicant was transferred to a publications unit in Spencer Street and worked there for four months. She was then transferred to a transport section in Albert Road for 18 months. Her next move was to St Kilda Road but the section in which she worked was relocated to Laverton. A position at Laverton was offered to her but she declined. She could not manage the travel time because of…
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 Trewin v Comcare
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Trewin v Comcare [1998] FCA 713
Case
[1998] FCA 713
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Trewin v Comcare is a case involving the applicant, Trewin, who sought judicial review of a decision made by Comcare, the respondent. The dispute centres on a claim made by Trewin for compensation under the Public Sector Superannuation (Commonwealth Authorities and Companies) Act 1991. Trewin argued that he was entitled to certain superannuation benefits following his separation from employment. The matter was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.
The legal issues before the court included whether the applicant had standing to bring the claim, the interpretation of specific provisions within the relevant legislation, and the correctness of Comcare's decision in denying the applicant's claim for compensation. The court had to consider whether the applicant's actions were within the scope of the legislation and whether the statutory interpretation applied by Comcare was correct.
The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant did not have standing to bring the claim. The court determined that the applicant's actions were not covered under the relevant legislation and that the statutory interpretation applied by Comcare was accurate. The applicant was also ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application, including reserved costs. This decision highlights the importance of establishing standing and the correct interpretation of legislation in administrative law cases.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.
The application is dismissed.
2.
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the application, including reserved costs.