Australian Postal Corporation v Mowbray [2003] FCA 1258

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Postal Corporation v Mowbray [2003] FCA 1258

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – worker's compensation – meaning of 'determination' in s 60(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – meaning of 'decision' in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) Pts II, IV, VI; ss 14, 60, 62, 64 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 3(3)

Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753 Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn [2003] FCA 318 Plumb v Comcare (1992) 39 FCR 236 AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION v G A MOWBRAY, IN HIS CAPACITY AS A MEMBER OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL A 17 OF 2003

STONE J 6 NOVEMBER 2003 CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY A 17 OF 2003

BETWEEN: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

APPLICANT

AND: G A MOWBRAY, in his capacity as a Member oF the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

FIRST RESPONDENT

Sidney MacDonald

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: Stone J

DATE OF ORDER: 6 NOVEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE: canberra

THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed with costs. 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 A 17 OF 2003

BETWEEN: Australian Postal Corporation

APPLICANT

AND: G A MOWBRAY, in his capacity as a Member oF the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

FIRST RESPONDENT

Sidney MacDonald

SECOND RESPONDENT

JUDGE: Stone J

DATE: 6 NOVEMBER 2003

PLACE: canberra

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

introduction 1 The applicant seeks relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) in relation to the conduct of the first respondent. The complaint centres on an application made by the second respondent ('Mr MacDonald') to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('AAT') for review of a decision made by the applicant. The applicant contends that the AAT has no jurisdiction and that therefore the application was not competent. Before the AAT Mr MacDonald alleged that the applicant's decision was made under s 62 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ('SRC Act'), that it fell within the definition of 'reviewable decision' in s 60 and therefore, under s 64 he was entitled to seek review of that decision. The first respondent has entered a submitting appearance and has reserved the right to be heard only in relation to costs. Reference in these reasons to the respondent is a reference to the second respondent. 2 The issue before me is whether the AAT had power to review the alleged reviewable decision of the applicant or, in other words, whether there was a decision by the applicant which was susceptible to an application for review under s 64 of the SRC Act. The facts that gave rise to this issue are not in dispute.