Williams and Australian Postal Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 16 min read

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,…

CaseChat AU logo

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
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
[2006] AATA 695
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute between the plaintiffs, Williams, and the Australian Postal Corporation centred on the delivery of a parcel. The plaintiffs alleged that the postal corporation failed to deliver the parcel in a timely and secure manner, resulting in damage to the contents. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The court was required to determine whether the Australian Postal Corporation breached its contractual obligations and whether it was negligent in its handling of the parcel. The primary legal issue was whether the postal corporation had a duty of care towards the plaintiffs and if it failed in that duty, leading to the damage of the parcel.

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.