Comcare v Line [2002] FCAFC 321

Comcare v Line [2002] FCAFC 321

Paragraph (a) of the definition of "suitable employment" applied to the respondent because she was a permanent Commonwealth employee when injured and did not herself terminate that employment; her employment was terminated by the Commonwealth. The words could not be rewritten as "whose employment was not...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 October 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Leave to add an additional ground of appeal was granted; the appeal was allowed only to the extent of setting aside paragraph 1(b)(i) and (ii) of the Tribunal's decision and remitting the s 19(2) compensation calculation for the first 45 weeks after 17 September 1995; the appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs to...
Legal Topics
['safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth)' 'suitable Employment' 'incapacity Payments' 'statutory Construction' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review']
["workers' Compensation" 'administrative Law'] ['safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth)' 'suitable Employment' 'incapacity Payments' 'statutory Construction' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal Review']

Source-derived case record

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 Single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the words "who did not subsequently terminate that employment" in paragraph (a) of the definition of "suitable employment" in s 4(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) exclude a person whose Commonwealth employment was terminated by the Commonwealth.' 'Whether "employment by the Commonwealth" in paragraph (a) of the definition of "suitable employment" means employment of the nature concerned with the Commonwealth rather than employment by the Commonwealth alone.' "Whether paragraph 1(b)(i) of the Tribunal's decision should have been set aside because the respondent's actual earnings during part of the first 45 weeks after 17 September 1995 had to be brought into account under s 19(2)."]

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph (a) of the definition of "suitable employment" applied to the respondent because she was a permanent Commonwealth employee when injured and did not herself terminate that employment; her employment was terminated by the Commonwealth. The words could not be rewritten as "whose employment was not terminated", and "employment by the Commonwealth" could not be expanded to include employment of the relevant nature by non-Commonwealth employers. The appeal therefore failed on the construction issues. However, consistency with the primary judge's reasoning required paragraph 1(b)(i) of the Tribunal's decision also to be set aside because, for the part of the first 45 weeks after 9...

Court Disposition

Leave to add an additional ground of appeal was granted; the appeal was allowed only to the extent of setting aside paragraph 1(b)(i) and (ii) of the Tribunal's decision and remitting the s 19(2) compensation calculation for the first 45 weeks after 17 September 1995; the appeal was otherwise dismissed with costs to...

Orders

  • ['The appellant be given leave to add a ground of appeal to the effect that the Court erred in failing to set aside par 1(b)(i) of the decision of the Tribunal and to remit the calculation of the normal weekly earnings of the respondent for the period referred to therein in accordance with the law.' 'Order 1 of Carr...