Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Cook v ASP Ship Management [2000] FCA 1393
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal – applications for compensation under Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) – directions hearing in Tribunal – allegations of bias and failure to give natural justice GEORGE WILSON COOK & ROSEMARIE HELGA COOK v ASP SHIP MANAGEMENT V 334 of 2000 HEEREY J 4 OCTOBER 2000 MELBOURNE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 334 of 2000
BETWEEN: GEORGE WILSON COOK
FIRST APPLICANT
ROSEMARIE HELGA COOK
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: ASP SHIP MANAGEMENT
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HEEREY J
DATE OF ORDER: 4 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application is dismissed. 2. The applicants pay the respondent's costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 334 of 2000
BETWEEN: GEORGE WILSON COOK
FIRST APPLICANT
ROSEMARIE HELGA COOK
SECOND APPLICANT
AND: ASP SHIP MANAGEMENT
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HEEREY J
DATE: 4 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an appeal against certain orders and directions made by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Senior Member B.G. Gibbs AM on 1 May 2000. The first applicant, Mr George Cook, was formerly employed by the respondent as a marine engineer. He made claims against the respondent under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth) ("the Seacare Act"). The first claim was in respect of an infection of his left leg which has resulted in cellulitis. The respondent has accepted responsibility in respect of that claim and has made weekly payments. However, it has determined Mr Cook is not entitled to a lump sum because his incapacity is less than 10 percent: Seacare Act, ss 39, 41. Mr Cook's second claim was in respect of loss of hearing. The respondent has denied liability. 2 Mr Cook brought applications for review by the Tribunal in respect of the leg claim (V1995/977) and the hearing loss claim (V1998/354). 3 The second applicant, Mrs Rosemarie Cook, the wife of Mr Cook, also brought an application for review (V2000/270) claiming for care and household services rendered to her husband. 4 On 21 February 2000 Deputy President Forrest fixed a hearing for three days to commence on 3 April 2000. He also directed that the applicants file a statement of facts and contentions pursuant to s 33(2A)(c) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ("the AAT Act"). On 14 March 2000 the applicants filed a document entitled "Response to directions of Deputy President Forrest21 February 2000". This document includes the following: (i) detailed allegations of defects in systems adopted on the vessel "Searoad Tamar" in relation to the pumping of oils, water, sewerage and other residues; (ii) details of medical treatment of Mr Cook; (iii) an account of an "abusive telephone call" from an officer of the respondent directing that Mr Cook return to work; (iv) details of how a doctor conducted a medical examination which was "fraudulent and untruthful" and "dishonestly touted as appropriate" by the respondent's solicitors; (v) allegations of fraudulent connivance and negligent advice by a firm of solicitors acting for Mr Cook; (vi) allegations of various other fraudulent representations by the respondent's solicitor; (vii) allegations of breach of duty of care by senior officers of the "Searoad Tamar". 5 This is said to be "not an exhaustive list" of the statements Mr Cook would make as a witness. 6 The document further states that Mrs Cook, "the witness/joined party" will "say and expand" that she has suffered "financial, emotional and physical harm from the actions and inactions" of officers of the respondent and its insurers and solicitors. There are allegations of the master of the "Searoad Tamar" belittling her and saying that Mr Cook was "malingering and lazy" when she knew he was "close to death". There are detailed assertions as to hardship caused by the failure to increase her husband's compensation payments and as to the extent of his disabilities. She states she has joined her husband's case because she is
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate