Telstra v Slater

Introduction 1 This is an appeal pursuant to s 44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth)(the AAT Act) from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) given in Brisbane on 12 November 1999. Such a proceeding is in the original jurisdiction of the Court. The decision under review before the AAT was a reviewable decision made on 10 November 1998 by a senior claims officer at GIO Australia's Telstra Compensation Group (which may be treated as a decision of Telstra Corporation Limited (Telstra) for the purposes of these reasons), by which an earlier Telstra determination of 14 October 1998 was affirmed, in relation to a claim for compensation by Mr Gordon Slater under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act). 2 The delegate of Telstra, on 16 April 1997, had earlier determined that Mr Slater was then: "2. … fit to return to full time work, with restrictions; and 3. that the available evidence has established that liability no longer exists in respect of incapacity payments; and 4. that the available evidence has established that liability still exists in respect of medical expenses as outlined in the statement of reasons." 3 The Tribunal, on 13 March 1998, decided: "The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review only in so far as it decided that the applicant was fit to return to full time normal duties with restrictions, and substitutes a decision that: 1. the applicant was partially incapacitated for work, but fit for full time work in suitable employment; and 2. remits the matter to Telstra, with a direction that the delegate determine what would be suitable employment for the purposes of s19 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988." 4 It should be noted that there was no reference to what compensation, if any, was payable to Mr Slater pursuant to s 19 of the Act. 5 On 14 October 1998 a senior claims officer of GIO Australia, referring to the remission by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal with a direction that the delegate determine what would be suitable employment for the purposes of s 19 of the Act, determined that suitable employment for the purposes of s 19 of the Actis: "Console Operator Real Estate Sales Person Occupational Health and Safety Officer Teacher of Technical and further Education/TAFE Teacher Mechanical Engineering Technician Mechanical Engineering Associate Building Inspector/Surveyor Clerical Position" 6 On 10 November 1998, in accordance with the provisions of s 62(5) of the Act, the determination of 14 October 1998 was affirmed. 7 On 12 November 1999, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal decided: The Tribunal varies the decision under review insofar as we determine that suitable employment for the applicant includes the occupations listed by Work Directions Australia in their report dated 4 September 1998. The matter is remitted to the respondent to calculate compensation payments by the respondent to the applicant in accordance with Section 19 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The Tribunal further directs that: s Compensation payments as calculated in accordance with Section 19 of the Act be payable from some date in October 1997 to be agreed on by the parties; s The respondent provide vocational counselling to select an occupation from the list provided in the Work Directions Australia report; and s The respondent provide a rehabilitation program pursuant to Section 37 of the Act, or some other form of program with the aim of re-training the applicant for his chosen occupation. 8 It is to be noted that the directions of the Tribunal, in its references to "select an occupation" and "chosen occupation" seem to contemplate that the duty of Telstra was to provide vocational counselling, so as to permit Mr Slater to select which occupation to pursue. 9 The central question on this appeal is whether the Tribunal erred in law in varying the decision of 10 November 1998, review of which was sought, and in giving the directions set out above.