Comcare v Ross, Michael John [1996] FCA 680

Comcare v Ross, Michael John [1996] FCA 680

The majority of the Tribunal found, and the Court upheld, that the respondent's injury was caused by the conflict in which he became embroiled involving his union and management, and not by a failure to obtain or retain a benefit. Consequently, the statutory exclusion in s4 did not apply and this finding on causation was open on the evidence and not subject to appeal as a question of law.

Parties
Applicant: COMCARE; Respondent: MICHAEL JOHN ROSS
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Meaning of 'injury' Under Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, Causation of Injury, Exclusion for Failure to Obtain Benefit
Administrative Law Workers' Compensation Meaning of 'injury' Under Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act Causation of Injury Exclusion for Failure to Obtain Benefit

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

COMCARE

Applicant

MICHAEL JOHN ROSS

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's injury was excluded from compensation under s4 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 as an injury suffered 'as a result of a failure to obtain a benefit' in connection with employment
  2. 2 Whether 'failure to obtain a benefit' includes failure to retain a benefit

Ratio Decidendi

The majority of the Tribunal found, and the Court upheld, that the respondent's injury was caused by the conflict in which he became embroiled involving his union and management, and not by a failure to obtain or retain a benefit. Consequently, the statutory exclusion in s4 did not apply and this finding on causation was open on the evidence and not subject to appeal as a question of law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed with costs