Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Comcare v Hill [2005] FCA 657 WORKERS COMPENSATION – Appeal against decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal ('AAT') setting aside decision of independent review officer who affirmed Comcare's determination denying liability for compensation claim made by respondent pursuant to Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ('the SRC Act') – whether respondent's injuries could be deemed to have arisen out of his employment – whether injury the result of reasonable medical treatment for an earlier compensable impairment and therefore a deemed injury pursuant to s 4(3) of the SRC Act – appeal dismissed Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act (1975) (Cth) s 25(4), 43(1), 43(2), 44(1) Safety, Rehabilitation & Compensation Act 1988 s 4, 4(3), 5, 5(9), 6A, 14, 14(1), 24, 60(1), 62(2), 62(4), 62(5), 63, 64(1), 69(a)
Federal Court Rules Order 53 rule 3(4)
Adelaide Stevedoring Company Ltd v Forst (1940) 64 CLR 538 cited Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Saxby Bridge Financial Planning Pty Ltd (2003) 133 FCR 290 cited Birdseye v Australian Securities & Investments Commission (2003) 76 ALD 321 cited Commonwealth of Australia v Holland (1991) 24 NSWLR 198 cited Fletcher v Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 19 FCR 442 cited Langley v Repatriation Commission (1993) 43 FCR 194 cited Qantas Airways Ltd v Cameron (1996) 66 FCR 246 cited Tuite v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (1993) 40 FCR 483 cited COMCARE v CHARLES HILL NSD 1505 OF 2004 HELY J 24 MAY 2005 SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1505 OF 2004
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL
BETWEEN: COMCARE
APPELLANT
AND: CHARLES HILL
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: HELY J
DATE OF ORDER: 24 MAY 2005
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate