Cooper v Comcare [2002] FCAFC 347

Cooper v Comcare [2002] FCAFC 347

There was no merit in the substantive appeal as the Tribunal's fact finding (injury and impairment before 1 December 1988) brought the applicant within the Levett principle: there was no entitlement to lump sum under the 1971 Act, and the SRC Act thus precluded any such right. As those findings were open on the evidence, refusal of extension of time was properly exercised, and leave should not be granted.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal (and Extension of Time) / Application for Leave to Appeal From Order Refusing Extension of Time
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'commonwealth Workers Compensation' 'appellate Review' 'interlocutory Appeal']
['administrative Law' 'workers Compensation'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'commonwealth Workers Compensation' 'appellate Review' 'interlocutory Appeal']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal (and Extension of Time) / Application for Leave to Appeal From Order Refusing Extension of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted from refusal of extension of time to appeal AAT decision' 'Whether substantial injustice would occur if leave refused' "Whether Tribunal's fact findings were open on the evidence"]

Ratio Decidendi

There was no merit in the substantive appeal as the Tribunal's fact finding (injury and impairment before 1 December 1988) brought the applicant within the Levett principle: there was no entitlement to lump sum under the 1971 Act, and the SRC Act thus precluded any such right. As those findings were open on the evidence, refusal of extension of time was properly exercised, and leave should not be granted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs of the application including reserved costs."]