....................[SGD]....................................................

JURISDICTION - whether decision reviewable - power to dismiss on grounds decision not reviewable - time limit for determining claim relating to incapacity for work, cost of medical treatment - absence of relevant notices of employer seeking information or other documents - absence of relevant notices to Authority to extend period - deemed disallowance of claim - written request for reconsideration following deemed disallowance - implicit rejection of claim following request for reconsideration - whether implicit rejection was reviewable decision

Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth)

Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Cth)

Irwin v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2009] FCAFC 33; (2009) 174 FCR 574

Telstra Corporation Ltd v Kotevski [2013] FCA 27; (2013) 209 FCR 558

Perry and Go Marine Group Pty Ltd [2021] AATA 830

Perry and Go Marine Group Pty Ltd [2023] AATA 4214

1. Mr David Perry made a claim for compensation on 30 January 2024 pursuant to the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 (Seafarers Act).
2. In his claim form he stated he was employed by ASP Ship Management as an Integrated Rating.
3. The claim was in respect of an injury to the applicant as employee that resulted in incapacitation for work and the cost of medical treatment for that injury. In the claim form, Mr Perry stated that he suffered injury in 1995, with no more specific date. He stated that he reported it to the 'Captain/Mate'. The injury is described as 'Post-traumatic osteo arthritis' affecting the right knee, He stated that he 'slipped on water' in the alleyway while 'walking in accommodation'. He stated that he was signed off the ship as a result of the injury. He said: 'I had a knee reconstruction and cartilage repaired it has now turned to arthritis'.
4. Mr Perry also advised that he did notice the injury now claimed in 2010 when working for Go Marine Group because he could not straighten the right knee and it hurt when walking up and down stairs. He did make a claim for compensation and saw a Dr Greg Gillett for the condition.
5. A medical certificate completed on 17 January 2024 by Dr Tarsem Madhar of the Cornwall Street Medical Centre in Woolloongabba that was apparently attached to the claim form stated:

is unable to work due to a medical condition (R Knee Osteoarthritits - tricompartmental osteoarthritis noted on most recent imaging). He has not worked since 2010 and it has been deemed in his recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal that his [sic] is due to a work place injury that occurred in 1995 whilst working for ASP Ship Management and has resulted in post traumatic osteoarthritis.

1. No written decision was made by ASP Ship Management Pty Ltd on that claim and on 7 March 2024, Mr Perry requested the employer to reconsider the determination in respect of his claim of 30 January 2024. That was done in writing and sent via email to 'abesich@aspships.com' sent at 1 :32 pm on Thursday, March 7, 2024, and stated:

I request ASP ship management under the Seafarers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 section 78.2 reconsider a determination made in relation to my claim sent to you on 30 January 2024, I seek this based on the medical evidence provided.

1. On 11 April 2024, Mr Perry lodged an application for review of a decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal stating that he had received a decision on 26 March 2024 which he states was made by 'Mr A Besich', of 'Majella', St Kilda Road, Melbourne. That address accords with the Head Office of ASP Group.
2. On 20 May 2024, ASP Ship Management, through its legal representatives HWL Ebsworth Lawyers wrote to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in respect of the application for review in the following terms:

Further to this Application and the correspondence received from the Tribunal dated 15 May 2024, we are instructed that no decisions have been issued on behalf of our client relevant to the claim for workers' compensation dated 30 January 2024, which is attached to the Application for Review of Decision.

Mindful that no decisions have been issued pursuant to the provisions of the SRC Act, it necessarily follows the Administrative Appeals Tribunal currently has no jurisdiction with which to consider the Application for Review of Decision lodged by the Applicant.

In such circumstances, the Respondent's position is the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ought to advise the Applicant that the present proceedings should be withdrawn to allow for the investigation and determination of his claim.

Failing this, the Respondent's position is that the present proceedings ought to be dismissed pursuant to section 42A(4) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) on the basis that substance of the Applicant's Application for Review of Decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal.

1. On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth) (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.

1. By section 97 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act), the Tribunal may dismiss any application for review where it appears that the decision is not reviewable.

97 Tribunal must dismiss application if decision is not reviewable decision

(a) the application is made for review of a decision; and

(b) the Tribunal is satisfied that the decision is not reviewable by the Tribunal.

(1) A decision is a reviewable decision if an Act or a legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision.

1. The word 'decision' is defined in section 4 of the ART Act:

(a) making, suspending, revoking or refusing to make an order or determination;

(b) giving, suspending, revoking or refusing to give a certificate, direction, approval, consent or permission;

(c) issuing, suspending, revoking or refusing to issue a licence, authority or other instrument;

(f) retaining, or refusing to deliver up, an article;

(g) doing or refusing to do any other act or thing.

1. By section 88 of the Seafarers Act, a claimant may apply to the ART 'for review of a reviewable decision'.
2. The terms claimant, determination, reconsideration and reviewable decision are defined in section 76 of the Seafarers Act (Part 6 - Reconsideration of determinations and review of decisions by the Administrative Review Tribunal):

ART Act means the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.

ART extension application means an application under section 19 of the ART Act that relates to a review of a reviewable decision or an extension of time decision.

claimant means a person in respect of whom a determination is made.

decision has the same meaning as in the ART Act.

determination means a determination, decision or requirement made by the employer under section 13, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 43A, 44, 45, 49, 50, 51, 66 or 126.

extension of time decision means a decision of the Authority under

guidance and appeals panel has the same meaning as in the ART Act.

guidance and appeals panel application has the same meaning as in the ART Act.

reviewable decision means a decision made under section 78.

1. By section 73 of the Seafarers Act, there is a time limit imposed on the employer within which to make a decision on liability in respect of claims relating to incapacity for work or medical treatment:

73 Time limit for determining claims relating to incapacity for work, loss of or damage to property or cost of medical treatment

(1) This section applies to a claim for compensation relating to:

(a) an injury resulting in an employee being incapacitated for work; or

(b) the loss of, or damage to, property used by an employee; or

(c) the cost of medical treatment for an injury suffered by an employee.

(2) The employee's employer must determine its liability in relation to the claim by the latest of the following times:

(a) the end of the period of 12 days after the day on which the employer receives the claim;

(b) if the employer, by notice under section 67 given to the claimant within the period referred to in paragraph (a), requests the claimant to give information or a document or a copy of a document, or an authority to obtain information or a document or a copy of a document - the end of the period of 12 days after the employer receives the information, the document or copy of the document or the authority, as the case may be;

(c) if, at the written request of the employer, the Authority, by written notice served on the employer, allows a further period or further periods for the determination of the liability - the end of that period or those periods, as the case may be.

(3) A request under paragraph (2)(c) must state fully and in detail the circumstances concerning, and the reasons for, the employer's request for the Authority to allow a longer period.

(4) A notice under paragraph (2)(c) does not have any effect unless it is served on the employer before the end of the period by which, apart from the notice, the employer would be required to determine the liability (including any period previously allowed under that paragraph).

(5) If the claim is for compensation relating to an injury resulting in the employee being incapacitated for work, compensation is payable in respect of the claim for the incapacity from and including the day on which liability arose under section 31.

(6) If the employer has not determined the claim by the end of the period allowed by this section, the employer is taken to have made a decision, at the end of that period, disallowing the claim.

1. A decision, or deemed decision, to refuse to accept a liability must be reviewed internally by an employer. A reconsideration of an adverse determination must, by section 78 of the Seafarers Act be made in writing, setting out the reasons for the request and given to the employer within 30 days on which the decision came to the notice of the claimant or such other period as the employer allows. Section 79 of the Seafarers Act provides a time limit within which the employer must conduct its reconsideration:

79 Time limit for reconsideration of determinations

(1) If a claimant requests an employer to reconsider a determination made by the employer, the employer must reconsider the determination before the later of the following times:

(a) the end of the period of 60 days after the employer receives the request;

(b) if, at the written request of the employer, the Authority, by written notice served on the employer, allows a further period or further periods for the determination of the liability - the end of that period or those periods, as the case may be.

(2) If the employer, by notice under section 83 given to the claimant within the period referred to in paragraph (1)(a) (or, if that period has been increased under subsection (3), within that period as so increased), requests the claimant to give information or a document or a copy of a document, or an authority to obtain information or a document or a copy of a document, that period is increased or further increased, as the case may be, by the number of days occurring after the day on which the request was made and before the day on which the employer receives the information, the document or copy of the document or the authority, as the case may be.

(3) If the employer, by notice under section 83A given to the claimant within the period referred to in paragraph (1)(a) (or, if that period has been previously increased under subsection (2), within that period as so previously increased), requires the employee to undergo an examination by a medical practitioner and requires the claimant to give the employer the report by the medical practitioner of the results of the examination, that period is increased, or that period as so previously increased is further increased, as the case may be, by the number of days occurring after the day on which the request was made and before the day on which the employer receives the report.

(4) A request under paragraph (1)(b) must state fully and in detail the circumstances concerning, and the reasons for, the employer's request for the Authority to allow a longer period.

(5) A notice under paragraph (1)(b) does not have any effect unless it is served on the employer before the end of the period by which, apart from the notice, the employer would be required to reconsider the determination (including any period previously allowed under that paragraph).

(6) If the employer has not determined the claim by the end of the period allowed by this section, the employer is taken to have made a decision, at the end of that period, disallowing the claim.

1. The provisions of sections 83 and 83A of the Seafarers Act are references to written notices to the claimant (1) to provide information or a document or copy of a document relevant to the claim where it is relevant to the claim (providing the employer is satisfied that the claimant has such information or document) and (2) to undergo one, and only one, medical examination at the employer's expense and the report provided to the employer of the results of the examination.

1. Mr Perry is a 59 year old resident of Carina in the State of Queensland.
2. No Tribunal documents have been provided to the Tribunal in respect of the application.
3. The information contained in the medical certificate referred to above of Dr Tarsem Madhar dated 17 January 2024 concerning a 'recent Administrative Appeals Tribunal' would likely be a reference to the decision of Senior Member Bellamy on 20 December 2023 reported as Perry and Go Marine Group Pty Ltd [2023] AATA 4214. I note that there was a prior Tribunal decision made on 9 April 2021 by Deputy President Sosso in relation to left knee injuries sustained in 2010 and reported as Perry and Go Marine Group Pty Ltd [2021] AATA 830. That decision also made references to the history of a right knee injury on 8 March 1995 while employed by ASP Ship Management as an Integrated Rating on the 'CSL Innovator' which transported sugar from Australia to Indonesia.[1]
4. From the decision of Senior Member Bellamy dated 20 December 2023, the following background history may be accepted:

(a) Mr Perry was employed by ASP Ship Management when 'on 8 March 1995 ... he slipped on a wet surface and his right knee twisted and gave way'. The Tribunal accepted that there was no evidence that he had any problem with his right knee before that incident.

(b) The Tribunal then recounted the following medical treatment immediately after the injury:

1. Mr Perry was examined by Dr Greg Gillett, Orthopaedic Surgeon. Dr Gillet performed a medial meniscectomy for a displaced bucket handle tear. He wrote a report on the day of the operation, 11 April 1995, to Mr Perry's treating General Practitioner. In that report, he said:

"I have arthroscoped David's knee today. The findings were that he had a displaced bucket handled tear of his medial meniscus. The medial collateral ligament is stable. The anterior cruciate ligament clinically reveals one plus drawer and a negative pivot shift but it is ruptured on the arthroscopic examination. The lateral side is normal and the patello-femoral joint is normal.

The displaced bucket handle has been arthroscopically excised.

He will now undertake a rehabilitation programme and in the longer term may require a cruciate ligament reconstruction but I would be optimistic that he won't and he will do well with an exercise programme."

1. A few months after the medial meniscectomy, Mr Perry had an anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. According to Mr Perry, he had nine months off work before returning as a full-time Integrated Rating. There is some evidence of ongoing symptoms in his right knee.

(c) In 2010 Mr Perry suffered a further injury to his right knee while employed by Go Marine Group Pty Ltd on the ship 'Miclyn Endurance'.

(d) He lodged a further workers compensation claim on Go Marine and liability was accepted for a "temporary aggravation" of his "right knee degenerative condition".

(e) Mr Perry was examined at his employer's request by Dr Peter Steadman, an orthopaedic surgeon on 11 December 2012 and a report of 18 December 2012 was produced and that report and a supplementary report of April 2023 formed a significant position in the ultimate decision of the Tribunal on 20 December 2023. The Tribunal made extensive reference to findings and conclusions expressed in those reports:

1. Dr Steadman opined that Mr Perry was suffering from right knee osteoarthritis and that his history of right knee problems was related to his 1995 injury. Specifically, he said:

"Mr Perry has ongoing pain and discomfort but the work related condition has not substantially altered the course of his right knee problem. He has been on a gentle slide of constitutional degeneration following the injury of 1995."

1. Dr Steadman concluded that Mr Perry had experienced a progressive problem in his knee following the injury in 1995 and that the injury on 14 November 2010 was "in essence a short term aggravation of the longer term problem". He thought the aggravation had passed but that "his main claim for the knee problem lies in the injury of 1995." Professor Steadman thought Mr Perry was, at that time, only capable of undertaking sedentary work, taking into account his obesity and the knee problems. He did not think any additional treatment was likely to be of value, although repeated Synvlsc injections could be of some benefit. He recommended weight loss would as the main strategy, saying that if Mr Perry could lose 50 kilograms his knee pain would go away.

1. Professor Steadman did not think it likely that the 2010 injury was not substantial enough to alter the course of the underlying osteoarthritis when all factors were considered. He opined that the effect of the 2010 injury as a contributing factor would have ceased shortly after the incident - around four to six weeks. Professor Steadman pointed to the evidence in Dr Cooke's 2011 report and the MRI which indicated that there was no material change in Mr Perry's right knee following the 2010 injury.
2. Relevant to that, when asked to identify the physiological impact of the 2010 injury, i.e. how it had aggravated the underlying condition, Professor Steadman gave a somewhat speculative answer. He said it could have been a soft tissue injury or something to that effect that caused some inflammation that led to pain and swelling in the knee. He clarified that the arthritis itself was not an injury but a process, and that if it were to be represented graphically, there was a gentle slope of downward deterioration from 1995 through to the present day, but in 2010 there might be a little (downward) spike when the knee became sore after the injury. He said an aggravation involving soft tissue will pass after about four to six weeks, and then the gradual decline will resume.
3. Professor Steadman considered that Mr Perry was only fit for sedentary work and that his incapacity for other work was due to morbid obesity, right knee osteoarthritis and left knee osteoarthritis. He attributed 25% of Mr Perry's current condition to the 1995 injury and 75% to constitutional morbid obesity comorbidity factors.
4. In his oral evidence, Professor Steadman explained that although people have an ACL reconstruction to prevent arthritis, depending on the severity of the injury that caused the ACL disruption, a significant proportion of people go on to get arthritis. He said the X-rays showed quite an acceleration of Mr Perry's arthritis in the last five years, and that it is now quite severe and looking very worn out. Professor Steadman pointed out that the arthritis in Mr Perry's right knee is not localised - it affects the whole knee - and that is consistent with the 1995 injury and its consequences.

(f) Senior Member Bellamy affirmed the Go Marine decision to cease liability on the conclusion that the effects of the 2010 injury probably ceased after a few months and had not continued by June 2012, the date from which Mr Perry was then seeking benefits. The conclusion was expressed after accepting medical evidence going to the relative weight to be placed in the 2010 injury compared to the 1995 injury:

1. I find it significant that according to Professor Steadman, the arthritis in Mr Perry's right knee is not localised and that is consistent with the condition arising from the 1995 injury. I also find it significant that Mr Perry was already experiencing some pain and limitation of movement prior to the injury. According to Professor Steadman, a major contributing factor to Mr Perry's right knee condition is excess weight, and that was the case when he saw him in 2012. I accept his expert opinion about that.
2. In 2018, Dr Crichton thought Mr Perry was unfit for work due to "prior work related meniscus and ACL injuries requiring surgery" which is a reference to the 1995 injury and subsequent condition. The 2022 medical certificate also refers to "prior work related meniscal and ACL injuries requiring surgery". Mr Perry himself gave evidence that his current condition was due to the 1995 injury although he also said the 2010 injury aggravated it and pointed out that it was this injury that stopped him working.

1. It was about a month following the receipt of that decision that on 30 January 2024, Mr Perry lodged his claim with the employer. That claim was completed on a standard claim form and it indicated that the compensation that was sought was of 'lost wages resulting from an incapacity for work' and 'medical and related expenses' by ticking the relevant options in response to question 15 on the claim form.
2. It may be assumed that Mr Perry is familiar with the processes of deemed decisions in the Seafarers Act. The decisions of the former AAT in relation to claims made on Go Marine Group both record that the 2021 right knee aggravation claim was the subject of a deemed disallowance[2] as was the primary determination in respect of the claim for incapacity payments for arthritis of the left knee in December 2017.[3]
3. Not having had any response from ASP Ship Management in relation to his 30 January 2024 claim he made a written request for reconsideration by email on 7 March 2024 in the terms noted above at paragraph 6 of this decision.
4. On 11 April 2024, Mr Perry lodged an application for review of a decision with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal stating that he had received a decision on 26 March 2024 which he states was made by 'Mr A Besich', of 'Majella', St Kilda Road, Melbourne. That address accords with the Head Office of ASP Group.
5. In a letter to the Tribunal registry dated 18 June 2024, Mr Perry stated in relation to the reconsideration:

At section 78(2)A claimant may, by notice in writing given to an employer, request the employer to reconsider a determination made in relation to that determination.

This request was made 8 March 2024, then rejected by ASP Ship management on 14 May 2024. For re-determination this was done verbally by Andro Besich. Human Resources Manager.

1. The request appears to have been made on 7, not 8 March 2024 and I accept that this was a typographical error.
2. Mr Perry, in the hearing of the dismissal application, was unable to recall the specific date when he received the message that his claim was not going to be accepted. In his application for review lodged on or about 11 April 2024, he stated that he received the decision on 26 March 2024 and stated: 'I was informed verbally that my claim was to be ignored, I take this as a rejection when it should be accepted.'
3. In the hearing of this matter, Mr Perry stated that he recalled having asked ASP Ship Management who to contact and was referred to Andro Besich who he understood was the human resources manager. He recalled that he had spoken to Mr Besich twice and that on the first call he formed a view that Mr Besich was a personable man who conversed with him about his claim. Mr Perry could not recall when the second call took place but that it was after he had sent in his written request for reconsideration and that on this call Mr Besich used words to the effect that he had been given some form of legal advice to ignore the claim.

1. The central factual finding to the existence of a jurisdiction to review is the existence of a reviewable decision. Ordinarily, such a decision is one made pursuant to a relevant statute in writing setting out the terms of the decision and the reasons for that decision as well as a notice of rights of review.
2. Here there are no written decisions. The respondent's contention from June 2024 was to the effect that in the absence of any written decision there could be no jurisdiction to hear and determine the entitlement claimed. However, there has been a change in representation by the respondent and the new representative, Ms Smith of Sparke Helmore, advised that such a contention was no longer advanced. The withdrawal of that contention was very sensible since by operation of subsections 73(2) in relation to primary determinations and 79(1) in relation to reviewable decisions, there can be a deemed decision by the elapse of the relevant time limit within which an employer must make its decision.
3. Further, the respondent accepts that the email of 7 March 2024 is, while a little sparse in detail, a request for reconsideration. The email identifies the claim rejected and suggests that the deemed denial would be otherwise should the medical evidence be considered. Given what the Tribunal found by way of medical evidence concerning the effect of the 1995 right knee injury in the decision of 20 December 2023, there is a sufficient basis for such a reconsideration.
4. The respondent did state that by operation of subsection 79(1) of the Seafarers Act it would have at least 60 days within which to reconsider the deemed denial starting from 7 March 2024 and that the application, lodged on 11 April 2024, less than 60 days after the request was made might be premature. The reviewable decision could not be deemed to have existed until about three weeks after the date of the application.
5. That conclusion would be correct, contingent on what finding is made concerning Mr Perry's conversation with Mr Besich. The only evidence concerning that conversation was from Mr Perry. He contends that he was told by Mr Besich that legal advice received was to ignore the claim. It was inferred that Mr Besich was acting in accordance with the advice.
6. Mr Besich did not give evidence concerning this matter. The respondent has been on notice concerning this allegation since the date of the 11 April 2024 application which identified Mr Besich as the decision-maker and that Mr Perry 'was informed verbally, that my claim was to be ignored'. The respondent offered no direct denial of this conversation and otherwise offered no evidence to contradict Mr Perry or to offer any other account of how it dealt with the claim or reconsideration request.
7. I find on the evidence that Mr Perry did have two conversations with an officer of the respondent identified as Mr Besich and held out to be the human resources manager ostensibly authorised to deal with the claim on behalf of the respondent. There was no submission to the contrary by the respondent. I find that on the second conversation which took place on a date after the lodgement by email of the reconsideration request of 7 March 2024 Mr Perry was told by Mr Besich, that he was acting on legal advice to ignore the claim.
8. The advice, so offered, was properly taken by Mr Perry to be an implied rejection of the claim which, given the time and the context, was an affirmation of the deemed primary determination. What was being ignored was the claim to compensation entitlements and not to ignore the request for a review. Hence, the decision was directed to the substance of the request. As such this was a reviewable decision to affirm the denial of liability to pay compensation.
9. A refusal to act on a claim or reconsideration request on the part of a relevant authority, as opposed to mere failure to act, has been accepted as a decision that is reviewable by the tribunal. In Telstra Corporation Ltd v Kotevski [2013] FCA 27; (2013) 209 FCR 558 the Federal Court dealt with the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider a claim in respect of hearing aids made but overlooked on internal review by the licensed corporation under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).[4] The licensee had determined claims in respect of other compensation items such as lump sum compensation for impairment (by way of hearing loss) but ignored the plain request for compensation for the medical treatment of the hearing aids. On review of the decision of the Tribunal the licensee argued that in the absence of any written decision concerning the medical treatment costs the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review and sought an order prohibiting the Tribunal from considering that entitlement.
10. The Court considered the decision in Irwin v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [2009] FCAFC 33; (2009) 174 FCR 574 where the ability to request liability for injury and also entitlement to specific compensation entitlements could be made simultaneously and a rejection of the liability claim was an implicit rejection of the claims for specific compensation. The Court went on to consider that Mr Kotevski's claim for hearing aids was similarly implicitly rejected. Importantly, the conclusion as to rejection was considered to be a question of fact.[5] In the circumstances of the case before him, Rares J in Kotevski considered the absence of reference in any correspondence to the claim entitlements made, and the indications in the written decision conveying finality to decision making on the part of the licensee, concluding that the implicit refusals of both the original and reconsideration decision-makers to have been a decision to refuse compensation within the defintion of 'decision' provided in of paragraphs 3(3)(a) or 3(3)(g) of the AAT Act:[6]

(a) making, suspending, revoking or refusing to make an order or determination;

(g) doing or refusing to do any other act or thing.

1. In like circumstances, I find that the decision made by the respondent in the present case to ignore, on advice, Mr Perry's claim made after the submission of the request for reconsideration was a reviewable decision.
2. Accordingly, the Tribunal does have jurisdiction to hear and determine the disallowance of Mr Perry's claim for compensation pursuant to sections 28 and 31 of the Seafarers Act for medical and related expenses in respect of, and lost wages due to incapacity resulting from, the right knee injury sustained in 1995.
3. It is now for this matter to be prepared for hearing. No Tribunal documents have been provided in this matter. I direct that the within 28 days of the receipt of this decision, the respondent shall give to the Tribunal and a copy to the applicant, all documents in the possession or under the control of the decision-maker relevant to the review of the decision pursuant to section 23 of the ART Act.
4. The matter will henceforth be managed by the Tribunal registry in accordance with the Administrative Review Tribunal (Common Procedures) Practice Direction 2024.

[1] [2021] AATA 830 [4]

[2] [2023] AATA 4214 [12]

[3] [2021] AATA 830 [1(b)]

[4] Establishing an workers compensation scheme that is analogous to the Seafarers Act.

[5] [2013] FCA 27; (2013) 209 FCR 558, 571 [52], Rares J.

[6] [2013] FCA 27; (2013) 209 FCR 558, 573 [57], Rares J. The definition from the AAT Act is reproduced in section 4 of the ART Act.