Davies v Australian Postal Corporation [2002] FCA 449

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Davies v Australian Postal Corporation [2002] FCA 449 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether decision of Tribunal against the weight of evidence – whether error of law – whether tribunal failed to consider question of whether offer of graduated return-to-work to commence at 5 am was a real offer of employment to be taken into account in considering whether any compensation for work related injury was payable when applicant sole carer of children who were sick. Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 14, 19(4), 4(1) Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 180 ALR 1 cited SUSAN DAVIES-KACANIC v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION N1226 OF 2001 HILL J 15 APRIL 2002 SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY N 1226 OF 2001

BETWEEN: SUZANNE DAVIES-KACANIC

APPLICANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HILL J

DATE OF ORDER: 15 APRIL 2002

WHERE MADE: SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the application be dismissed.

2. the applicant pay the costs of the respondent. 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 1226 OF 2001

BETWEEN: SUZANNE DAVIES-KACANIC

APPLICANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: HILL J

DATE: 15 APRIL 2002

PLACE: SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, Ms Davies, (formerly known as Ms Kacanic and in these reasons referred to as Ms Davies) appeals against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") constituted by a senior member, Ms Ettinger and by Dr P Lynch, an ordinary member, varying an earlier decision of the Tribunal made on 25 September 1997 by finding that no liability of the Respondent, the Australian Postal Corporation ("the Corporation") to Ms Davies arose under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act") from 1 March 1996 because she had failed to participate in a graduated return-to-work program and further that Ms Davies had no loss of earnings because she had resigned from the employment of the Corporation on 18 March 1998. The appeal, which is in the original jurisdiction of the Court is an appeal on, that is to say, limited to a question of law: s 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 ("the AAT Act")