Way and Australian Postal Corporation - [2004] AATA 625

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 625
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2002/1649

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) No N2003/1038

Re Gerard Way

Applicant

And

Australian Postal Corporation

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal
Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member

Dr M E C Thorpe, Member

Date21 June 2004
PlaceSydney

Decision
Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decides that:

(i) In relation to matter N2002/1649, the decision under review is affirmed.

(ii) In relation to matter N2003/1038, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor, decides that pursuant to section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, the Respondent is liable to pay compensation for injuries to Mr Way’s lower back as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment at Australia Post and arising from this decision, compensation for his lower back condition under any other relevant section.

(iii) The Respondent is liable to pay the Applicant’s reasonable legal costs as taxed or agreed in relation to the matter N2003/1038.

..............................................
Ms S M Bullock
Presiding Member

WORKERS COMPENSATION – lower back injury – liability – permanent impairment- nature and conditions of employment
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (Cth) 1988 ss 4, 14, 16, 19, 24, 25, 27
Comcare v Moon (2003) 75 ALD 160
Comcare v Amorebieta (1996) 66 FCR 83
REASONS FOR DECISION
21 June 2004 Ms S M Bullock, Senior Member
Dr M E C Thorpe, Member
1.Mr Gerard Way, the Applicant, has made two applications for review to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) of two reviewable decisions made by the Respondent, the Australian Postal Corporation. The first reviewable decision was made on 15 October 2002 (T41, N2002/1649) and affirmed a determination made on 22 August 2002 (T38A), that Mr Way was not entitled to any compensation for permanent impairment and non economic loss because of a lower back condition, pursuant to sections 24 and 27 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988. The second reviewable decision was made on 18 June 2003 (T18, N2003/1038), which affirmed a decision of 13 June 2003 (T11, N2003/1038), that there is no entitlement to compensation under any section of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, including, but not restricted to sections 14, 16, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25 and 27. A hearing was held in Sydney commencing 10 December 2003 and resuming on 11 and 12 December 2003.
2.Mr Way was represented by Mr L Grey of Counsel and the Respondent was represented by Mr B Skinner of Counsel. Documents were lodged and taken into evidence pursuant to section 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (“T Documents”, N2002/1649, T1-T43; N2003/1038, T1-T19). A number of exhibits were also taken into evidence and are listed in Schedule 1 attached to this decision.

Issues
3.The issues in this matter are whether or not Mr Way has a lower back condition which is attributable to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Way and 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: [2004] AATA 625
Decision Date: 21 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Way and Australian Postal Corporation was a case heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The Applicant, Mr Way, brought proceedings against the Respondent, Australian Postal Corporation, seeking compensation for lower back injuries sustained during his employment. Mr Way claimed that his injuries were a result of the nature and conditions of his employment, and thus the Respondent was liable for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The Tribunal was required to decide whether the Respondent was liable for compensation under the Act, and if so, the amount of compensation payable.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Respondent was liable to compensate Mr Way for his lower back injuries under the relevant legislation. The Tribunal needed to examine the evidence presented by both parties and determine whether the injuries were indeed caused by the nature and conditions of Mr Way's employment. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider whether the Respondent's decision to deny compensation was reasonable, and whether the appropriate section of the Act applied to the circumstances of the case.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that the Respondent was liable to pay compensation to Mr Way for his lower back injuries. The Tribunal concluded that the injuries were indeed caused by the nature and conditions of Mr Way's employment, and thus the Respondent was liable for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The Tribunal set aside the Respondent's decision to deny compensation and substituted its own decision, finding that the Respondent was liable to pay compensation for Mr Way's lower back condition. The Tribunal also ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant's reasonable legal costs in relation to the matter.

In summary, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review in matter N2002/1649, but set aside the decision in matter N2003/1038. The Tribunal found the Respondent liable to pay compensation for Mr Way's lower back injuries and ordered the Respondent to pay the Applicant's reasonable legal costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to section 43 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decides that:

(i) In relation to matter N2002/1649, the decision under review is affirmed.

(ii) In relation to matter N2003/1038, the Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and in substitution therefor, decides that pursuant to section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, the Respondent is liable to pay compensation for injuries to Mr Way’s lower back as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment at Australia Post and arising from this decision, compensation for his lower back condition under any other relevant section.

(iii) The Respondent is liable to pay the Applicant’s reasonable legal costs as taxed or agreed in relation to the matter N2003/1038.

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.

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		) No N2003/1038
Re		Gerard Way