Comcare v Sassella [2001] FCA 1514

Comcare v Sassella [2001] FCA 1514

On the evidence referred to by the Tribunal, Qantas' refusal to make a s 37 determination was only overtly manifested by the letter of 20 March 2001. That was after Ms Brophy's 29 November 2000 request to Comcare and after Comcare's 1 February 2001 response, so there was no antecedent Qantas decision capable of review by Comcare and no reviewable decision capable of sustaining Ms Brophy's application to the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 39 B(1) and S 39 B(1 A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 for Review of a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application allowed; decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside; declarations made that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
Legal Topics
['administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'reviewable Decision' 'safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) Ss 36, 37, 38, 60 and 64' 'meaning and Making of a Decision' 'constructive Refusal']
['administrative Law' 'workers Compensation' 'rehabilitation and Compensation'] ['administrative Appeals Tribunal Jurisdiction' 'reviewable Decision' 'safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) Ss 36, 37, 38, 60 and 64' 'meaning and Making of a Decision' 'constructive Refusal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 39 B(1) and S 39 B(1 A) of the Judiciary Act 1903 for Review of a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether, when Ms Brophy applied to the Tribunal, Qantas had made a primary decision under s 37 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) capable of review by Comcare under s 38(4).' "Whether Comcare had made a reviewable decision that could enliven the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s 64(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)."]

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence referred to by the Tribunal, Qantas' refusal to make a s 37 determination was only overtly manifested by the letter of 20 March 2001. That was after Ms Brophy's 29 November 2000 request to Comcare and after Comcare's 1 February 2001 response, so there was no antecedent Qantas decision capable of review by Comcare and no reviewable decision capable of sustaining Ms Brophy's application to the Tribunal. The Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal set aside; declarations made that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.

Orders

  • ['The application be allowed.' 'The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal dated 11 July 2001 be set aside.' 'The Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to review the decision found by it to have been made by Comcare.' 'The Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear...