van Oostveen, William v Comcare

[1998] FCA 1124

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SAFETY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION – where appellant unsuccessful claimant for compensation for stress and anxiety and lichen planus – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in law by finding that there was insufficient evidence of incapacity to work – whether stress and anxiety a “disease” or “injury” for the purposes of the Act – whether the necessary causal connexion with employment able to be shown.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider a claim or submission not put to it by appellant

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

Health Insurance Commission v Van Reesch & Anor (1996) 45 ALD 302 Refd
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 100 CLR 626
Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth (1985) 9 FCR 36 Refd
Noble v Repatriation Commission (Full Court, 3 November, unreported) Appl
University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481 Refd
Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 Refd

William van Oostveen v Comcare

QG 15 of 1998

Kiefel, Finn and Finkelstein JJ
Brisbane
9 September 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG 15 of 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	WILLIAM VAN OOSTVEEN APPELLANT
AND:	COMCARE RESPONDENT
JUDGES:		KIEFEL, FINN AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE OF ORDER:		9 SEPTEMBER 1998
WHERE MADE:		BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed.

2. The appellant pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY	QG 15 of 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:	WILLIAM VAN OOSTVEEN APPELLANT
AND:	COMCARE RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	KIEFEL, FINN AND FINKELSTEIN JJ
DATE:	9 SEPTEMBER 1998
PLACE:	BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

KIEFEL and FINN JJ

The appellant has been an unsuccessful claimant for compensation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (“the Act”) for, amongst other complaints, the skin condition lichen planus and stress and anxiety.  He appeals from  the decision of a Judge of this Court, dismissing an appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).

As will be observed from the reasons which follow, the appellant’s counsel was permitted to range more widely in his challenge to the Tribunal’s decision than the notice of appeal would have warranted.  The consequence of this has been that we have been asked to consider matters that were not explicitly considered either by the Tribunal or by his Honour.  We deferred consideration of a motion by the respondent to strike out the appeal as incompetent until argument had been heard on the appeal.  Given the view we take of the appeal itself it is unnecessary for us to deal with the motion.

For the purposes of the appeal we need only refer to several provisions of the Act.  Section 14(1) provides that:

“14.(1)   Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay…