Concetta Ilardo v Australian Telecommunications Commission [1983] FCA 305
Federal Court of Australia
Full text
Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
IN THE FEDEPAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISICN
No. G. 239 of 1983
BETWEEN:
CONCETTA ITLARDO
Appellant
AND:
AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
Respondent
ORDERS
JUDGE MAKING ORDERS: ST, JOHN, J.
DATE OF ORDERS: TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER, 1983
WHERE MADE: ' AT SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
(1) The Notice of Appeal 1s struck out,
(2) The appellant is to pay the respondent's
costs,
Sane ae Be tee a at
VPA tine cnet
PORE ale fy
ERR ART EE GP I ee Be!
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALZS DISTRICT REGISTRY
CLNERAL DIVISTOM
No. G. 239 of 1983
BETWEEN:
CONCETTA ILARDO
Appellant
AND:
AUSTRALIAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSTON
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(EXTEMPORE)
TUESDAY 25 OCTOBER, 1983
AT SYDNEY
This is an application to strike out a notice of
appeal, the grounds of which have been recently
amended, the appeal being from the decision of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal to deny the appellant,
Concetta Ilardo, workers compensation pursuant to the
relevant act,
aee/2
rere UTHER MIR STI Ate ee tem tee me
ENT Lee pee yr
mnie
In the amended notice of appeal, the question
of law raised 1s stated thus:-
"That the Tribunal erred in law in
Finding that any incapacity suffered
by the Applicant as a resuit of her
injury had ceased as of 26 August, 1983
in that it misapprehended and failed to
take into account relevant considerations
or alternatively gave weight to irrelevant
considerations,"
Counsel for the appellant has put to me that
the considerations which the Tribunal failed to take
unto account were the evidence of Dr. Gatenby, a
psychiatrist, whose report on the appellant was
before the Tribunal. In the judgment of the Tribunal
reference is made to Dr. Gatenby's report, and they
discount its weight for two express reasons at page
10 of the judgment in paragraph 25 where they say:-
"As we earlier indicated we are not
prepared to place great reliance upon
the report by Dr Gatenby as he
obviously had difficulty in communi-
cating with the applicant and he appears
to have accepted a greater degree of
organic disability to the left shoulder
than the orthopaedic evidence otherwise
clearly establishes."
Broadly, the injury suffered by the appellant
was an injury to her left shoulder when she tripped
and fell on her way to her place of employment on
0/3
tern ee ener eer a RE Near tee er eo
~s
13 October 1978, Thereafter she was treated by her
local general practitioner, who referred her to Dr.
Tooth, an orthopaedic specialist who continued to
see her and reported on her up until 1982 at least.
Dr. Tooth made mention on a number of occasions
of a functional overlay being the explanation for the
appellant's professed symptoms, but there were other
aspects of his evidence which the Tribunal was entitled
to take into account in assessing the credibility of
the appellant, and in particular, she attended for a
number of medical examinations with bruising inconsistent,
-— ow -
because of the lapse of time, with the original injury.
Dr. Gatenby expressed the view that, in his opinion,
the appellant was not malingering, but the Tribunal took
the view that the bruising that I have referred to was
self-inflicted for the purpose of perpetuating her
compensation elegibility. In addition, the Tribunal
took the view that she was not credible, at least in some
aspects of her evidence.
What has been raised or attempted to have been
raised in the notice of appeal is, in my view, not a
question of law, but a question of fact, to which the
Tribunal addressed itself and, so far as I can determine
oe /4
from reading the judgment, the Tribunal addressed
itself 1n a conscientious and thorough manner to the
evidence which was before it,
The motion to strike out the appeal, because of
its failure to state in it a question of law, there-
fore, succeeds. I strike out the notice of appeal.
I certify thet this and the THAGE Qa)
preceding pages are a true copy of the
Reasons fox Judgment herein of his Honour
Mr. Justice ST. wore
Associats
Datedy 34. to. 83 Frek,
Ue INE NRT leg UTE ee peewee tn USA NIe aE me oe ete
meer me arisen wae
i
t
!
b
as
Related laws
No related documents linked yet.
You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.