Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Shillingford v Comcare [2020] FCA 775 Appeal from: Shillingford v Comcare [2019] AATA 4972
File number: ACD 102 of 2019
Judge: GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment: 9 June 2020
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – appeal from a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming a reviewable determination of Comcare that the applicant's incapacity entitlement under s 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act was $0 because his normal weekly earnings under s 8(10)(a) were calculated as $0 – whether AAT erred in finding that the applicant was no longer entitled to receive compensation payments from 11 September 2017 – whether the AAT should have found that Comcare was liable to make continuing payments under s 19 with reference to s 8(10)(b) because the applicant ceased to be employed by the Commonwealth from 24 February 2017 – notice of appeal dismissed with costs
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 44 Public Service Act 1999 (Cth), ss 7, 22 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), ss 5, 8, 9, 19, 62
Cases cited: Bortolazzo v Comcare [1997] FCA 515; 75 FCR 385 Comcare v Simmons [2014] FCAFC 4; 220 FCR 102 Dunstan v Comcare [2014] AATA 208; 139 ALD 691 John Holland Group Pty Ltd v Robertson [2010] FCAFC 88; 185 FCR 566 Phillips v Commonwealth [1964] HCA 22; 110 CLR 347 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Peisley [2006] FCAFC 79
Date of hearing: The matter was determined on the papers
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