Comcare v Sassella [2001] FCA 1514

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Comcare v Sassella [2001] FCA 1514 COMCARE v MICHAEL J SASSELLA, JOY BROPHY A53 of 2001 FINN J CANBERRA 8 NOVEMBER 2001

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY A53 OF 2001

BETWEEN: COMCARE

APPLICANT

AND: MICHAEL J SASSELLA

FIRST RESPONDENT

JOY BROPHY

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE OF ORDER: 8 NOVEMBER 2001

WHERE MADE: CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be allowed. 2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 11 July 2001 be set aside.

THE COURT DECLARES: 1. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the decision found by it to have been made by Comcare. 2. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for review lodged by Ms Brophy on 15 March 2001. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY A53 OF 2001

BETWEEN: COMCARE

APPLICANT

AND: MICHAEL J SASSELLA

FIRST RESPONDENT

JOY BROPHY

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: FINN J

DATE: 8 NOVEMBER 2001

PLACE: CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 An object of Comcare's application under s 39B(1) and s 39B(1A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 for a review of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") is to ensure that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application made to it by the second respondent, Joy Brophy, under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the SRC Act"). The application had the potential to expose difficulties of no little complexity with this less than happily draughted statute. In the event, it can be dealt with in relatively simple fashion. 2 At issue is whether, at the time at which Ms Brophy's application to the Tribunal was made, a primary decision had been made by Ms Brophy's previous employer (Qantas) under s 37 of the SRC Act which could be, and was, reviewed by Comare under s 38(4) of that Act, so providing a reviewable decision (see s 60(1)) that could enliven the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s 64(1) of the Act.