Keller, M. v. Australian Postal Corporation [1994] FCA 1002

Federal Court of Australia|1994-12-02|Before: Heerey J

JUDGMENT No. 0/0087 Dt, IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Applicant

and - AUSTRALIAN POSTATL CORPORATION Respondent JUDGE Heerey J DATE: 2 December 1994 PLACE: Melbourne

The respondent Australian Postal Corporation applies for an order under O 20 r 2, which enables the Court when it is

that the proceeding be stayed or dismissed generally.

The proceeding was started on 7 November 1994 when the applicant lodged an application for a review of certain administrative decisions. Those were - first, a decision made by Angela Sawyer, claims manager, Australia Post, on 4 March 1992, relating to compensation for personal injury sustained on 12 September 1991; secondly a decision made by S. Wallace, work environment section, retail and delivery business unit claims manager on 26 February 1993 relating to compensation

for personal injury sustained on or after 17 June 1992; and

thirdly, made by Mrs L. Turner for K.A. Searson, Commissioner for Superannuation, Commonwealth Superannuation Administration on 29 June 1994 relating to an application for payment of the

It appears the applicant has commenced proceedings in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal seeking to review the second of those decisions. Quite apart from the question that the present application to this Court is out of time under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act, it seems much better from everyone's point of view, especially the applicant's, that she have the full right of re-hearing of her claim for compensation that she will get in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This Court can only review questions of

As to the third claim, the respondent, Australian Postal Corporation, is not responsible for superannuation

administration and, in any event, that claim is out of time

The applicant has filed two affidavits which do not make out any case for extension of time. The affidavits and what the applicant said before me this morning do go into considerable detail in relation to problems she has encountered at her work. Of course I am not in a position to say anything as to the correctness or otherwise of her claims. Also, she

complains that she is still treated as an employee of

Australia Post and she says that under the relevant award,

after 78 weeks sick leave, her employment is terminated.

I feel sorry for the applicant who, obviously, is in need of some independent advice about her superannuation and employment entitlements, but this Court is not given the responsibility to give advice of that kind; the Industrial

Relations Commission may be able to give her some assistance,

I am satisfied the claims made in the applicant's application under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act,

should not be allowed to proceed further. I grant the orders

I order the applicant pay the respondent's costs, including

I certify that this and the preceding 3 (three) pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of his Honour Mr Justice Heerey.

Date 2 of 1994 Lewecl Appearances Counsel for the applicant: In Person Solicitor for the applicant: In Person Counsel for the respondent: M McInnis Solicitor for the respondent: Wisewoulds

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (22 paragraphs)