Broadhurst v Comcare [2010] FCA 1034

Broadhurst v Comcare [2010] FCA 1034

The AAT did not err in rejecting Table 9.7, applying Table 9.17 generally, rejecting the broader challenge to whole person impairment, or giving reasons. However, Table 9.17 could not be used to decide the specific statutory question whether the appellant's permanent impairment was less than 10%, because the combination of Table 9.17's 8% and 13% values and the Guide's instruction not to choose non-specified values prevented a direct determination of the 10% threshold required by s 24(7) of the SRC Act. The AAT's decision was therefore set aside and the matter remitted, with Table 9.17 to be treated as inapplicable to that threshold question.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2010
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Appeal Concerning Compensation Under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) / Appeal to the Federal Court Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) From Broadhurst and Comcare [2010] AATA 251
Outcome
Appeal allowed; AAT decision set aside and matter remitted to the AAT.
Legal Topics
['permanent Impairment' 'whole Person Impairment' 'comcare Guide' 'safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) S 24' 'appeal on a Question of Law From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal']
['administrative Law' "commonwealth Workers' Compensation"] ['permanent Impairment' 'whole Person Impairment' 'comcare Guide' 'safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) S 24' 'appeal on a Question of Law From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal']

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

Administrative Law Appeal Concerning Compensation Under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) / Appeal to the Federal Court Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) From Broadhurst and Comcare [2010] AATA 251

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Table 9.17 of the Comcare Guide could validly determine that the appellant's permanent impairment was less than 10% by requiring a choice between 8% and 13% impairment values." 'Whether the Comcare Guide could use the notion of whole person impairment to express the degree of an individual impairment under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).' "Whether Table 9.7 or Table 9.17 of the Comcare Guide applied to assessment of the appellant's impairment." 'Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons.']

Ratio Decidendi

The AAT did not err in rejecting Table 9.7, applying Table 9.17 generally, rejecting the broader challenge to whole person impairment, or giving reasons. However, Table 9.17 could not be used to decide the specific statutory question whether the appellant's permanent impairment was less than 10%, because the combination of Table 9.17's 8% and 13% values and the Guide's instruction not to choose non-specified values prevented a direct determination of the 10% threshold required by s 24(7) of the SRC Act. The AAT's decision was therefore set aside and the matter remitted, with Table 9.17 to be treated as inapplicable to that threshold question.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; AAT decision set aside and matter remitted to the AAT.

Orders

  • ['The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted to it.' 'Any application for costs is to be made within 14 days supported by short written submissions. Any response is to be made within a further 7 days.']