CATCHWORDS Administrative law - application to review decision of Commissioner for Employees' Compensation - whether Court should review law where questions of fact and law could be subject to review by Administrative Appeals Tribunal - discretion under s.10(2)(b)(i1) of Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act where adequate provision made other than under Act. Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s.10. FRANCIS THOMAS ANDERSON v COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION No. VG44 of 1986 Sweeney J. Melbourne 23 May 1986 yi 5 16 JUN BRE FSO rae PRINCIPAL WeGistay IN THE PEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) ) VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY ) NO. VG 44 of 1986 ) GENERAL DIVISION } BETWEEN: FRANCIS THOMAS ANDERSON Applicant AND: COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION Respondent JUDGE MAKING ORDER: SWEENEY J. DATE OF ORDER : 23 May 1986 WHERE MADE : Melbourne MINUTE OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT: Ll. The application be dismissed, with costs, including reserved costs, to be taxed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders 18 dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALTA VICTORIA D ISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION BETWEEN: FRANCIS THOMAS ANDERSON AND: COMMISSIONER FOR EMPLOYEES' COMPENSATION THE COURT DATE PLACE This 1s an application to OURT: Sweeney J. : 23 May 1986 Melbourne NO. VG 44 of 1986 ~~ err REASONS FOR JUDGMENT the Court to review a decision the respondent, made on 20 February 1986. That decision was made upon an application for redemption the Commonwealth's liability to make payments to the applicant compensation in respect of partial incapacity. The respondent filed a notice of motion seeking orders - 1. 2. that the application be struck out; in the alternative, that these proceedings be removed Applicant Respondent or of of to cw the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") pursuant to $.10(2)(b) (11) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ("the Act"). Section 10(2)(b)tit) provides that, notwithstanding the rights to apply for review conferred by ss.5,6 and 7 of the Act, the Court may, in its discretion, refuse to grant an application under those sections for the reason- "(ii) that adequate provison is made by any law other than this Act under which the applicant is entitled to seek a review by the Court, by another court, or by another tribunal, authority or person, of that decision, conduct or failure". For the purposes of dealing with this application I assume, without deciding, that the onus lies on the respondent to show that the Court. in the exercise of its discretion under $.10(2)(b)(i2), should refuse to grant the application, on the ground that adequate provision 18 made whereby the applicant 18 entitled to seek a review of the decision of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation by the Tribunal. The applicant is entitled to seek a review by the Tribunal in respect of all questions of fact and of law. The applicant, quite naturally, does not wish to give up his right to seek from the Tribunal a review of the decision of the Commissioner in relation to questions of fact. However, he asks the Court to express its opinion ot the law in relation to the facts as found by the Commissioner. {f the Court were to do so, and that opinion proved to be unfavourable to the applicant, he could then seek a review of the facts by the Tribunal, which might lead toa finding of facts which would render the' Court's opinion academic. I am satisfied that 1t is in the interests of the parties and of the public to refuse, in accordance with s.10(2)(b)(i1), to grant the application, and I do so. This refusal is, of course, without prejudice to the rights of the applicant to seek a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The application is dismissed, with costs, including reserved costs, to be taxed. IT certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of The Honourable Mr. Justice Sweeney Dated: 23 May 1986- a—