Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Comcare v Chambers (No 2) [2017] FCA 1070 Appeal from: Chambers v Comcare [2016] AATA 615
File number: NSD 1564 of 2016
Judge: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 7 September 2017
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – power of Court to remit matter to Tribunal – whether Court should impose condition on remitter that no further evidence be received by Tribunal COSTS – whether parties should bear own costs
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) ss 44(4), 44(5), 44(6)
Cases cited: Bushell v Repatriation Commission [1992] HCA 47; (1992) 175 CLR 408 Comcare v Chambers [2017] FCA 1014 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Wang [2003] HCA 11; (2003) 215 CLR 518 Peacock v Repatriation Commission [2007] FCAFC 156; (2007) 161 FCR 256
Date of hearing: 6 September 2017
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 18
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr P Lehmann
Solicitor for the Applicant: Lehmann Snell Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr L Grey with Mr J Mrsic
Solicitor for the Respondent: Turner Freeman Lawyers
ORDERS NSD 1564 of 2016
BETWEEN: COMCARE Applicant
AND: JOHN CHAMBERS Respondent
JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE OF ORDER: 7 SEPTEMBER 2017
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Leave be granted to the Applicant to file an amended notice of appeal in the form handed up at the case management hearing on 6 September 2017. 2. Appeal allowed in part. 3. Set aside so much of the Tribunal's determination that Mr Chambers' aggravation of his epilepsy was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission ('the Epilepsy Issue'). 4. Appeal otherwise dismissed. 5. Direct that the Epilepsy Issue be remitted to the Tribunal to rehear and decide in such manner as the Tribunal may determine is in the interests of justice including, without limitation, a determination by the Tribunal of the issue of whether the Respondent should now be permitted to lead fresh evidence on that issue. 6. The Applicant pay 25% of the Respondent's costs as taxed or agreed. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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