Cooper v Comcare [2002] FCAFC 50; [2002] FCA 220
The definition of 'former employee' under s 123 requires only the presence of any injury resulting in incapacity for which compensation was being paid immediately before the commencing day, not necessarily the same injury for subsequent compensation entitlements; therefore, appellant's compensation was lawfully reduced under s 134(1).
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 08 March 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Dismissal of Appeal Against AAT Decision
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['commonwealth Employees Compensation' 'transitional Provisions' "interpretation of 'former Employee' Under S 123 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988" 'reduction of Compensation Upon Reaching 65']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Appeal From Dismissal of Appeal Against AAT Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether appellant was a 'former employee' within the meaning of s 123 of the 1988 Act" "Proper interpretation of 'an injury resulting in an incapacity' for transitional provisions" "Whether s 134(1) applies to reduction of appellant's compensation" 'Effect of s 23(1) on compensation entitlements after 65']
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'former employee' under s 123 requires only the presence of any injury resulting in incapacity for which compensation was being paid immediately before the commencing day, not necessarily the same injury for subsequent compensation entitlements; therefore, appellant's compensation was lawfully reduced under s 134(1).
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- ['The appeal be dismissed.' 'Costs be reserved.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment