van Oostveen, William v Comcare [1998] FCA 1124

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA SAFETY REHABILITATION AND COMPENSATION – where appellant unsuccessful claimant for compensation for stress and anxiety and lichen planus – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in law by finding that there was insufficient evidence of incapacity to work – whether stress and anxiety a "disease" or "injury" for the purposes of the Act – whether the necessary causal connexion with employment able to be shown. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in law by failing to consider a claim or submission not put to it by appellant Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 14, 4 Health Insurance Commission v Van Reesch & Anor (1996) 45 ALD 302 Refd Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 100 CLR 626 Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth (1985) 9 FCR 36 Refd Noble v Repatriation Commission (Full Court, 3 November, unreported) Appl University of Wollongong v Metwally (No 2) (1985) 59 ALJR 481 Refd Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 Refd

William van Oostveen v Comcare QG 15 of 1998 Kiefel, Finn and Finkelstein JJ Brisbane 9 September 1998

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 15 of 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL Court OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN: WILLIAM VAN OOSTVEEN

Appellant

AND: COMCARE

Respondent

JUDGES: KIEFEL, Finn and finkelstein JJ

DATE OF ORDER: 9 september 1998

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be dismissed. 2. The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QG 15 of 1998

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL Court OF AUSTRALIA