Ramsay v Australian Postal Corporation [2005] FCA 640

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ramsay v Australian Postal Corporation [2005] FCA 640 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – compensation of Commonwealth Government employees -whether failure to produce material witness for cross examination amounted to denial of natural justice when decision maker represented that the witness would have to be called, if acceptance of evidence mattered to outcome of case – evidence was treated as significant part of case ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) – whether a decision to cease compensation under s 19 precluded further claim for permanent impairment – whether decision-maker purportedly affirmed a non-existent determination

Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 14(1), 19, 37(7), 62 Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 33, 35 39 Australian Postal Commission v Hayes (1989) 87 ALR 283 followed Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 cited Australian Postal Corporation v Forgie (2003) 202 ALR 63 applied Australian Postal Corporation v Oudyn [2003] FCA 318 followed GORDON RAMSAY v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION No QUD 140 of 2004 SPENDER J 20 MAY 2005 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY QUD 140 OF 2004

ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

BETWEEN: GORDON RAMSAY

APPLICANT

AND: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: SPENDER J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 MAY 2005

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT DECLARES: 1. (a) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") made an error of law in finding that Kate Harrison was authorised on 7 March 2001 to make a determination pursuant to s 37(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the SRC Act") that the Applicant undertake a rehabilitation programme commencing on 12 March 2001 ("the rehabilitation programme"). (b) the Tribunal made an error of law by failing to exercise its jurisdiction to review the respondent's decision of 17 September 2001 which affirmed its determination of 7 March 2001 that the applicant undertake the rehabilitation programme. 2. The Tribunal made an error of law by failing to exercise its jurisdiction to review the respondent's decision of 17 September 2001 by which the respondent refused to reconsider its determination of 28 March 2001 that the applicant's entitlements to compensation and to institute or continue any proceedings under the SRC Act in relation to compensation until he began to undertake the rehabilitation programme were suspended. THE COURT ORDERS: 3. (a) The respondent's decision of 17 September 2001 affirming the determination of 7 March 2001 that the applicant undertake the rehabilitation programme be set aside. (b) The respondent's determination of 7 March 2001 that the applicant undertake a rehabilitation programme commencing on 12 March 2001 be set aside. (c) The respondent pay the applicant's costs of his application to the Tribunal for review of the decision described in 3(a) herein. 4. (a) The respondent's decision of 17 September 2001 by which the respondent refused to reconsider its determination of 28 March 2001 that the applicant's rights to compensation and to institute or continue any proceedings under the SRC Act in relation to compensation were suspended until he began to undertake the rehabilitation programme be set aside. (b) The respondent's determination of 28 March 2001 that the applicant's rights to compensation and to institute or continue any proceedings under the SRC Act in relation to compensation were suspended until he began to undertake the rehabilitation programme be set aside. (c) The respondent pay the applicant's costs of his application to the Tribunal for review of the decision set out in 4(a) herein. 5. (a) The Tribunal's order dismissing application Q2002/856 be set aside. (b) Application Q2002/856 be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration according to law. 6. (a) The decision of the Tribunal of 30 June 2004 affirming the decision of the respondent dated 17 September 2001 which affirmed the determination of 7 March 2001 that the respondent is no longer liable to pay compensation to the applicant in respect of his neck, back, right shoulder and right knee conditions, be set aside. (b) The matter be remitted to the Tribunal for consideration according to law.