Pelgrave, Anthopny Mark v Comcare Australia [2002] FCA 1025

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Pelgrave v Comcare Australia [2002] FCA 1025

WORKERS COMPENSATION – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required, but failed, to determine the amount an incapacitated worker was able to earn in suitable employment – whether error of law

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 14(1), 19, 62 and 64 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 44

Lees v Comcare (1999) 56 ALD 84 - cited Noble v Repatriation Commission (Unreported, Federal Court of Australia, Beaumont, Branson and Merkel JJ, 3 November 1997) - cited Woodbridge v Comcare (1994) 20 AAR 196 - cited Telstra v Slater [2001] FCA 149 - cited ANTHONY MARK PELGRAVE v COMCARE AUSTRALIA S139 OF 2002 JUDGE: MERKEL J DATE: 16 AUGUST 2002 PLACE: ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 139 OF 2002

BETWEEN: ANTHONY MARK PELGRAVE

APPELLANT

AND: COMCARE AUSTRALIA

RESPONDENT JUDGE: MERKEL J

DATE OF ORDER: 16 AUGUST 2002

WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The appeal be allowed. 2. The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 2 May 2002 be set aside in so far as it relates to the claim of the appellant for compensation set out in the letter of Stanley & Partners to Comcare dated 23 May 2000. 3. The claim for compensation referred to par 2 of these orders be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to be determined in accordance with law. 4. The respondent pay the appellant'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

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 139 OF 2002

BETWEEN: ANTHONY MARK PELGRAVE

APPELLANT

AND: COMCARE AUSTRALIA

RESPONDENT