Comcare Australia (Defence) v O'Dea, Daniel Troy [1998] FCA 1184

Comcare Australia (Defence) v O'Dea, Daniel Troy [1998] FCA 1184

The Tribunal made no error of law in adopting the Hafza approach to residence, and its findings that the respondent normally resided at his parents' home in Traralgon and resided temporarily at the RAEME barracks as a matter of necessity or convenience for his employment were findings of fact supported by evidence. Because the respondent was injured while travelling between those places, the injury fell within s 6(1)(b)(iii) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Compensation Under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court From an Order Dismissing an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['commonwealth Employee Compensation' 'injury While Travelling' 'place of Residence' 'normal Residence' 'temporary Residence' 'army Barracks']
['administrative Law' 'workers Compensation' 'employment Law'] ['commonwealth Employee Compensation' 'injury While Travelling' 'place of Residence' 'normal Residence' 'temporary Residence' 'army Barracks']

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 Concerning Compensation Under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 / Appeal to the Full Court of the Federal Court From an Order Dismissing an Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal misconstrued the phrase "normally resides" in determining that the respondent normally resided at his parents\' home in Traralgon.' 'Whether the facts found could support the conclusion that the respondent normally resided at Traralgon at the date of the accident.' 'Whether the Tribunal misconstrued "temporarily" in s 6(1)(b)(iii) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988.' 'Whether the respondent resided temporarily at the RAEME barracks as a matter of necessity or convenience for the purposes of his employment.' "Whether the respondent's injuries were sustained while travelling between the place where he normally resided and a place where he resided temporarily for employment purposes."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal made no error of law in adopting the Hafza approach to residence, and its findings that the respondent normally resided at his parents' home in Traralgon and resided temporarily at the RAEME barracks as a matter of necessity or convenience for his employment were findings of fact supported by evidence. Because the respondent was injured while travelling between those places, the injury fell within s 6(1)(b)(iii) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

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