Boyd v Australian Postal Corporation [2006] FCA 73 (7 February 2006)

Last Updated: 27 February 2006

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Boyd v Australian Postal Corporation [2006] FCA 73

BRIAN BOYD v AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION
NSD 1558 of 2005

ALLSOP J
7 FEBRUARY 2006
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1558 of 2005

BETWEEN:	BRIAN BOYD APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE OF ORDER:	7 FEBRUARY 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT:

(1) Orders that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's decision in matter N2004/1171 dated 2 August 2005 and the subject of written reasons on 24 August 2005 be set aside.

(2) Declares in partial substitution of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and otherwise that during the period 2 July 2003 to 4 September 2003, the applicant suffered from the effects of the injury to his right knee that occurred on 28 April 2000 and in respect of which liability was accepted on 11 May 2000 (the "Injury").

(3) Declares that:

(a) pursuant to s 16 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act), the applicant is entitled to compensation for the costs of medical treatment reasonably obtained in respect of the Injury in the period 2 July 2003 to 4 September 2004;

(b) pursuant to s 19 of the SRC Act, the applicant is entitled to compensation for incapacity in respect of the Injury in the period 2 July 2003 to 4 September 2003;

(c) in the period 5 September 2003 to 7 February 2006, the applicant was not entitled to compensation in respect of the Injury;

(d) in respect of the claims completed on 17 January 2003 (incorrectly dated 17 January 2002) and 18 July 2003, no liability under s 14 of the SRC Act arises.

(4) Orders that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal proceedings numbered N2004/1171 as agreed or assessed.

(5) Orders that the respondent pay the applicant's costs in this Court as agreed or assessed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	NSD 1558 of 2005

BETWEEN:	BRIAN BOYD APPLICANT
AND:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	ALLSOP J
DATE:	7 FEBRUARY 2006
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 In this matter the applicant, Brian Boyd, has appealed under s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. That of course is a matter in the original jurisdiction of this Court, and subject to some exceptions the limits of that proceeding before the Court are the questions of law in relation to the Tribunal's decision.

2 The background to the matter is conveniently set out in the decision of the Tribunal itself, which is both concise and clear. Mr Boyd was an employee of the Australian Postal Corporation, and during his employment delivered mail generally by use of a motorbike. During his time with the respondent, in particular from 2000 onwards, he made complaints of injuries and aggravations to his right knee said to have been caused in the course of his employment.

3 The Tribunal dealt with the matter as it did and I will not repeat the orders that it made.

4 The applicant complained about the orders made in relation to proceedings in N 2004/1171.

5 The parties have been able to reach agreement as to what ought to be the position. Also, by reference to the facts that they have agreed they are prepared to agree what are the legal consequence thereof. That agreement, for its clear identification and effectuation, requires that one part of the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal be set aside.

6 The parties explained to me this morning the nature of that perceived error, and it rests upon the recognition, which was not made by the Tribunal, of the facts which obtain in relation to a period from 2 July 2003 to 4 September 2003.

7 There is no need for any further hearing by the Tribunal of the dispute. The parties have brought in short minutes. Those short minutes require three things: first, a partial setting aside of the Tribunal's decision insofar as it relates to N2004/1171; secondly, pursuant to the power given by s 44(7) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act, findings about the period from 2 July 2003; and thirdly, certain declarations of right as to the legal relationship between the parties consequent upon the facts by reference to the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).

8 Given that the matter concerns only the immediate parties to the dispute and none of the declarations that would be made would or could affect third parties on the material that has been provided to me this morning, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make the declarations.

9 To found the declarations that I make it is necessary to invoke the general conferral of civil jurisdiction on this Court in s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903. This gives the Court jurisdiction to hear any matter arising under a law of the Parliament (other than criminal jurisdiction). Thus, with an appropriate amendment to the summons, a declaration of right under the relevant provisions of the SRC Act could be made. I will dispense with any need for the parties to amend the originating process. It can be merely noted that the orders that I make are partly based on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 and s 39B(1A)(c) of the Judiciary Act 1903.

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Allsop.

Associate:

Dated: 14 February 2006

Counsel for the Applicant:	Mr M Vincent
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Bale Boshev Lawyers
Counsel for the Respondent:	Mr G Elliott
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Graham Jones Lawyers
Date of Hearing:	7 February 2006
Date of Judgment:	7 February 2006