Clarke, Ronald Harold v Comcare [1998] FCA 1522

Clarke, Ronald Harold v Comcare [1998] FCA 1522

The appeal failed because the grounds did not disclose reviewable error of law. There was evidence, particularly Dr Morris' evidence supported by other material, upon which the Tribunal could reasonably conclude that most of the 15 per cent impairment occurred before 1 December 1988 and that any later impairment was less than the 10 per cent threshold. The Tribunal was entitled to act on that evidence, and the handling of the written evidence of Dr Lemke and Dr Franklin did not amount to a denial of natural justice or procedural irregularity.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 October 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Pursuant to S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Federal Court Appeal; Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal on a Question of Law From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'permanent Impairment Compensation' 'transitional Provisions for Pre Commencement Impairments' 'reasonableness of Tribunal Fact Finding' 'natural Justice']
['administrative Law' 'workers Compensation'] ['appeal on a Question of Law From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'permanent Impairment Compensation' 'transitional Provisions for Pre Commencement Impairments' 'reasonableness of Tribunal Fact Finding' 'natural Justice']

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

Appeal From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Pursuant to S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) / Federal Court Appeal; Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision was manifestly unreasonable in accepting Dr Morris' evidence about the extent and timing of the applicant's permanent impairment." 'Whether the Tribunal erred in law or denied natural justice by not participating in a telephone link to hear further evidence from Dr Lemke and Dr Franklin.' 'Whether any permanent impairment occurring after 1 December 1988 reached the statutory threshold for compensation under sections 24 and 25 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal failed because the grounds did not disclose reviewable error of law. There was evidence, particularly Dr Morris' evidence supported by other material, upon which the Tribunal could reasonably conclude that most of the 15 per cent impairment occurred before 1 December 1988 and that any later impairment was less than the 10 per cent threshold. The Tribunal was entitled to act on that evidence, and the handling of the written evidence of Dr Lemke and Dr Franklin did not amount to a denial of natural justice or procedural irregularity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal."]