Shillingford v Comcare [2020] FCA 775

Shillingford v Comcare [2020] FCA 775

The AAT did not err in concluding that Mr Shillingford continued to be employed by the Commonwealth for the purposes of s 8(10)(a). The SRC Act definition of employee includes a person employed under a law of the Commonwealth, and his engagement as a non-ongoing APS employee under s 22(2)(c) of the Public Service...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) From an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Federal Court Determination on the Papers of Amended Notice of Appeal
Outcome
Amended notice of appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) Incapacity Payments' 'normal Weekly Earnings' 'non Ongoing APS Casual Employment' 'section 8(10) Reduction of Normal Weekly Earnings']
['administrative Law' 'workers Compensation' 'commonwealth Employment Law'] ['appeal From Administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (cth) Incapacity Payments' 'normal Weekly Earnings' 'non Ongoing APS Casual Employment' 'section 8(10) Reduction of Normal Weekly Earnings']

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 Under S 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (cth) From an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision / Federal Court Determination on the Papers of Amended Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the AAT erred in law by determining that no compensation was payable under s 19 by reason of s 8(10)(a) without considering provisions of the SRC Act limiting termination of continuing benefits.' 'Whether the AAT erred in law by construing the words "continues to be employed" in s 8(10)(a) so as to apply to a person engaged for irregular or intermittent duties under s 22(2)(c) of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth).' 'Whether the AAT erred in law by failing to construe s 8(10)(b) and apply it to the facts and circumstances pertaining to Mr Shillingford.']

Ratio Decidendi

The AAT did not err in concluding that Mr Shillingford continued to be employed by the Commonwealth for the purposes of s 8(10)(a). The SRC Act definition of employee includes a person employed under a law of the Commonwealth, and his engagement as a non-ongoing APS employee under s 22(2)(c) of the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth), on the terms of the Department's letters, was continuing employment even though duties were irregular or intermittent. Applying s 8(10)(a) week by week, the AAT could take into account that, as at 11 September 2017, no work would have been available to him even if he had not been injured; consequently the weekly earnings he would receive if not incapacitated were...

Court Disposition

Amended notice of appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The amended notice of appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs, as agreed or taxed."]