Administrative
Appeals
Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2006] AATA 695
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No N2005/559
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re SHIRLEY WILLIAMS Applicant
And
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Ms N Bell, Senior Member Date11 August 2006
PlaceSydney
Decision The decision under review is affirmed
...................[sgd]..............
Ms N Bell
Senior Member
COMPENSATION – Depressive Condition – Liability Accepted for Aggravation – Claim for Compensation Relating to Further Aggravation – Further Incident Found to be Aggravation of Condition – Tribunal Found Aggravation Arose Out of Applicant’s Failure to Receive a Benefit – Overtime – Applicant Does Not Meet Definition of Injury – Decision Under Review Affirmed.
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
REASONS FOR DECISION
11 August 2006 Ms N Bell, Senior Member 1. Mrs Shirley Williams began working with Australia Post in 1994. In the late 1990’s she developed depression and obtained private treatment for the condition. In June 2004 she made a claim for compensation following incidents at work that had exacerbated her condition. Liability was accepted by Australia Post for “limited aggravation of depressive disorder”. Mrs Williams returned to work and proceeded as best she could with her condition, “keeping her head down” and concentrating on building her house with her husband who also worked at the Mail Centre.
2. The weeks leading up to Christmas are a busy time at Australia Post. It is common ground that Mrs Williams, sometime between 5:00 am and 6:00 am on 20 December 2004, was towards the end of her shift and working on overtime. She and her colleagues were working to meet the usual deadline of having mail sorted in time to meet the delivery truck at 6:00 am. In Mrs Williams’ opinion, she and her colleagues were on track to meet the deadline. However, an Australia Post Delivery Manager, Graeme Hislop, thought otherwise and marshalled a number of “Christmas casuals” to move into Mrs Williams’ work area and complete the task. Mrs Williams objected to this, had a heated discussion with Mr Hislop and left the site. She returned to work the next evening and had a further discussion with the Mail Centre Manager, Wayne Robinson, became distressed and again left the site. She has not returned to work and retired on medical grounds on 22 April 2005. Mrs Williams contends that her pre-existing psychiatric condition was further aggravated by these incidents.
3. Australia Post contends that if there was aggravation it was of a temporary nature and that, in any event, an exclusion in the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act), relating to employment benefits exempts Australia Post from liability.
issues
4. Section 14 of the Act provides that Australia Post is liable to pay compensation in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity or impairment. Section 4 of the Act defines “injury” to include a disease, injury or aggravation of an injury arising out of, or in the course of,…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Williams 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] AATA 695
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the terms of the contract between the plaintiffs and the Australian Postal Corporation, focusing on the obligations of the postal corporation in delivering parcels. It also examined the common law principles of negligence, including the establishment of a duty of care, breach of that duty, and causation. The court found that the Australian Postal Corporation owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs, but it did not breach that duty. The court held that the damage to the parcel was not due to any negligence on the part of the postal corporation, but rather due to an external factor, such as an act of a third party. Therefore, the court concluded that the postal corporation was not liable for the damage to the parcel. The decision under review was affirmed, and the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The decision under review is affirmed
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.