Commonwealth of Australia v Portelli, John Baptist [1982] FCA 16

Commonwealth of Australia v Portelli, John Baptist [1982] FCA 16

The appeal was allowed because the single judge had no power under s.94A to vary the questions of law referred by the Tribunal. However, the original first and second questions referred by the Tribunal were questions the Court should answer, and the majority answered both affirmatively. The ankle injury determination related to the period and cause of total incapacity, and s.5(11)(a) made contribution by the ankle injury sufficient, so the Tribunal could reconsider whether the ankle injury and its effects resulted in an incapacitating hysterical state. The heart attack determination was expressed broadly as to whether employment contributed to coronary sclerosis and myocardial infarction...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 February 1982
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court on Questions of Law Referred by the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order of Northrop J set aside; first and second questions referred by the Tribunal answered Yes; case remitted to the Tribunal; Commonwealth to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and of the reference before Northrop J.
Legal Topics
['commonwealth Employee Compensation' 'compensation Tribunal Reconsideration' 'reference of Questions of Law' 'jurisdiction to Vary Referred Questions' 'incapacity Resulting From Injury or Disease']
['workers Compensation' 'administrative Law' 'federal Court Jurisdiction'] ['commonwealth Employee Compensation' 'compensation Tribunal Reconsideration' 'reference of Questions of Law' 'jurisdiction to Vary Referred Questions' 'incapacity Resulting From Injury or Disease']

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 Single Judge of the Federal Court on Questions of Law Referred by the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Federal Court had power to vary by consent questions of law referred by the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal of its own motion under s.94A of the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971." 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to reconsider whether the ankle injury and its effects resulted in an hysterical state incapacitating the employee for work.' 'Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to reconsider whether the ankle injury and resultant hysterical condition contributed to the aggravation and/or acceleration of coronary artery disease and myocardial infarction.' 'Whether the third referred question about the general scope and purpose of the Act was a question of law arising in a proceeding before the Tribunal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the single judge had no power under s.94A to vary the questions of law referred by the Tribunal. However, the original first and second questions referred by the Tribunal were questions the Court should answer, and the majority answered both affirmatively. The ankle injury determination related to the period and cause of total incapacity, and s.5(11)(a) made contribution by the ankle injury sufficient, so the Tribunal could reconsider whether the ankle injury and its effects resulted in an incapacitating hysterical state. The heart attack determination was expressed broadly as to whether employment contributed to coronary sclerosis and myocardial infarction...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order of Northrop J set aside; first and second questions referred by the Tribunal answered Yes; case remitted to the Tribunal; Commonwealth to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal and of the reference before Northrop J.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The order of Northrop J., dated 9 June 1981, be set aside.' "The first question referred to the court by the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal in the case stated be answered: Yes." "The second question referred to the court by the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal...