Hassaballa v Comcare [2000] FCA 749

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Hassaballa v Comcare [2000] FCA 749 MAURICE HASSABALLA v COMCARE N 250 OF 2000 HELY J 19 MAY 2000 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 250 OF 2000

BETWEEN: MAURICE HASSABALLA

APPLICANT

AND: COMCARE

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE OF ORDER: 19 MAY 2000

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The proceedings instituted by the Amended Notice of Appeal be dismissed. 2. The respondent pay the costs of the motion. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 250 OF 2000

BETWEEN: MAURICE HASSABALLA

APPLICANT

AND: COMCARE

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HELY J

DATE: 19 MAY 2000

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 When this matter was last before the court, I gave the respondent leave to move for the summary dismissal of the appeal on the grounds that the amended notice of appeal did not raise any question of law sufficient to ground an appeal to this court. That motion was taken out and, consistent with the earlier arrangements, was made returnable before me this morning. I am satisfied that the applicant was served with a copy of the Notice of Motion and supporting affidavit on 11 May. He has not appeared this morning. 2 The Amended Notice of Appeal states that the questions of law raised on the appeal are: (a) whether the applicant is entitled to compensation, either lump sum or weekly payments for permanent impairment under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act"); and (b) whether the applicant is entitled to have the respondent pay his medical expenses under the Act. 3 The grounds assigned in the Amended Notice of Appeal are as follows: - since being injured at work on 19 January 1982, the applicant has suffered significant and continuing disability and has been unable to work. This disability relates to the applicant's neck and back. The applicant believes that his disability was caused by the injury at work in 1982 and that the respondent should be liable to pay compensation to the applicant for his permanent impairment, and pay for ongoing medical expenses. 4 In my view the Amended Notice of Appeal does not raise any question of law so as to enliven the jurisdiction of this court. I therefore order that the Amended Notice of Appeal be dismissed. 5 After I had delivered my reasons for dismissing the Amended Notice of Appeal, the applicant arrived and explained to me that the reason for his non-attendance at 9.15 am was that he wrongly thought that the matter was listed at 9.30 am. I accepted what he had to say in that respect and invited him to put any submissions which he wished to put in opposition to the making of an order summarily dismissing the Amended Notice of Appeal. Mr Hassaballa explained to me that what he seeks is damages for the suffering caused by the accident. The accident occurred 15 years ago at a time when the respondent was paying wages. However, nothing that Mr Hassaballa put to me goes anywhere near establishing the existence of a point of law. Rather, what he said tends to confirm that what he is seeking is an impermissible merits review of the decision made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. 6 Accordingly, I propose to order that the proceedings instituted by the Amended Notice of Appeal be dismissed, and I order that the respondent should pay the costs of this motion. I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Hely.