Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Comcare v Singh [2012] FCA 136 Citation: Comcare v Singh [2012] FCA 136
Appeal from: Singh and Comcare [2011] AATA 533
Parties: COMCARE v SAMUEL SINGH
File number(s): NSD 1424 of 2011
Judge: JAGOT J
Date of judgment: 24 February 2012
Catchwords: APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – appeal from decision of Administrative Appeals Tribunal – whether a question of law arises – whether inadequacy of reasons a question of law – adequacy of reasons considered – appeal allowed
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Postal Corporation v Forgie (2003) 130 FCR 279; [2003] FCAFC 223 Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (2009) 253 ALR 263; [2009] FCA 49 Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Limited (2009) 179 FCR 554; [2009] FCAFC 137 Comcare Australia v Lees (1997) 151 ALR 647; [1997] FCA 1415 Dornan v Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564 Pascoe v Australian Postal Corporation (2004) 77 ALD 464; [2004] FCAFC 4 Singh and Comcare [2011] AATA 533 Telstra Corp Ltd v Administrative Appeals Tribunal (2003) 37 AAR 40; [2003] FCA 102
Date of hearing: 24 February 2012
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 28
Counsel for the Applicant: Miss RM Henderson
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