Munday and Comcare

Case [2015] AATA 123

[2015] AATA 123

Division GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION

File Numbers

2013/3342

Michael Munday

APPLICANT

And

Comcare

RESPONDENT

INTERLOCUTORY DECISION

Tribunal

Dr James Popple, Senior Member
Date 5 March 2015
Date of written reasons 5 March 2015
Place Canberra

Under s 40(1C) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Tribunal authorises the District Registrar to refuse the applicant’s request of 9 February 2015 to issue a summons.

.............................[sgd]...........................................

James Popple, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Proceedings — Tribunal’s power to issue summons — whether requested summons is relevant — requested summons relates to events subsequent to claim — summons refused.

LEGISLATION

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 40(1C)

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, ss 5A, 5B, 14

REASONS FOR DECISION

James Popple, Senior Member

5 March 2015

Summary

  1. I authorise the District Registrar not to issue a summons as requested by the applicant.  The summons would require the production of documents that are not relevant to this review.

    Background

  2. On 22 November 2012, Mr Michael Munday made a claim for workers’ compensation in relation to a period of employment with the Department of Human Services (the Department). On 4 March 2013, Comcare refused his claim, denying liability under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act). On 13 March 2013, Mr Munday sought reconsideration of that decision. On 13 May 2013, Comcare made a reconsideration decision that Mr Munday was not entitled to compensation. On 7 July 2013, Mr Munday applied to the Tribunal, under s 64 of the SRC Act and s 29(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, for review of that decision.

  3. In these proceedings, Comcare contends that this Tribunal should not be satisfied that Mr Munday’s ailment was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment as required by section 5B of the SRC Act. If the Tribunal is satisfied, the Respondent argues that the Tribunal should decide that the ailment resulted from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, excluding it from the definition of ‘ailment’ in section 5A of the SRC Act.

    The requested summons

  4. On 9 February 2015, Mr Munday requested that a summons be issued, directed to the Secretary of the Department.  The summons would require the production of documents including documents relating to an incident that occurred on 1 December 2014 and subsequent events, including action taken by the Department.  1 December 2014 was more than 18 months after Comcare made its reviewable decision.

  5. At a directions hearing on 5 March 2015, I discussed the summons (and another summons) with Mr Munday and Comcare’s representative.  Mr Munday says that the summons relates to an “ongoing case of institutional harassment that has occurred and which continues to damage my health and wellbeing”.  Comcare does not oppose the issuing of the summons.

    The relevance of the summons

  6. The question to be resolved in this review is whether Comcare is liable, under s 14 of the SRC Act, to pay compensation to Mr Munday. The Tribunal has to make the correct or preferable decision having regard to the facts and circumstances as they are now. However, I do not think that the documents that the summons would require to be produced are relevant to those facts and circumstances.

  7. Mr Munday asserts that he is the victim of continuing institutional harassment—or (in the terms of the SRC Act) administrative action that was neither reasonable nor taken in a reasonable manner. Even if that is true in relation to the 1 December 2014 incident and subsequent events, I do not think it is relevant to the administrative action with which this review is concerned, which occurred before Comcare made its reviewable decision. The documents that Mr Munday seeks relate to events that he says have aggravated his condition. They can only be relevant to a claim regarding those events.

  8. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to issue the summons.

I certify that the preceding 8 (eight) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Senior Member James Popple

..............................[sgd]..........................................

Associate

Dated 5 March 2015

Dates of hearing 5 March 2015
Applicant In person
Counsel for the Respondent Mr Michael La Vista
Details
AGLC
Munday and Comcare [2015] AATA 123
Case
[2015] AATA 123
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Munday and Comcare, the applicant, Mr Michael Munday, sought a summons to be issued by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) to the Secretary of the Department of Human Services (the Department). The summons aimed to compel the production of documents related to an incident that occurred on 1 December 2014 and subsequent events, which Mr Munday argued were part of an ongoing case of institutional harassment affecting his health and wellbeing. Comcare, the respondent, did not oppose the issuance of the summons. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the requested documents were relevant to the review of Comcare's decision to deny Mr Munday's workers' compensation claim.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was the relevance of the documents that Mr Munday sought to obtain through the summons. Specifically, the Tribunal had to decide if the documents related to the events subsequent to the decision that was the subject of the review. The Tribunal considered whether the administrative action that occurred before Comcare made its reviewable decision could be influenced by the events subsequent to that decision. It was essential to determine whether the documents related to the ongoing institutional harassment were pertinent to the administrative action that led to the denial of Mr Munday's compensation claim.

In deciding the matter, the Tribunal concluded that the documents sought by Mr Munday were not relevant to the review of Comcare's decision. The Tribunal found that the administrative action with which the review was concerned occurred before Comcare made its reviewable decision. Even if the subsequent events constituted institutional harassment, they did not impact the decision that was the subject of the review. Therefore, the Tribunal refused to issue the requested summons as the documents were not relevant to the current facts and circumstances of the case.

The Tribunal did not issue the summons as requested by Mr Munday. The Tribunal found that the documents sought were not relevant to the administrative action that led to the denial of Mr Munday's compensation claim. The decision was based on the premise that the administrative action in question occurred before the subsequent events that Mr Munday argued were part of ongoing institutional harassment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

I authorise the District Registrar not to issue a summons as requested by the applicant. The summons would require the production of documents that are not relevant to this review.Background On 22 November 2012, Mr Michael Munday made a claim for workers’ compensation in relation to a period of employment with the Department of Human Services (the Department). On 4 March 2013, Comcare refused his claim, denying liability under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act). On 13 March 2013, Mr Munday sought reconsideration of that decision. On 13 May 2013, Comcare made a reconsideration decision that Mr Munday was not entitled to compensation. On 7 July 2013, Mr Munday applied to the Tribunal, under s 64 of the SRC Act and s 29(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, for review of that decision. In these proceedings, Comcare contends that this Tribunal should not be satisfied that Mr Munday’s ailment was contributed to, to a significant degree, by his employment as required by section 5B of the SRC Act. If the Tribunal is satisfied, the Respondent argues that the Tribunal should decide that the ailment resulted from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, excluding it from the definition of ‘ailment’ in section 5A of the SRC Act.The requested summons On 9 February 2015, Mr Munday requested that a summons be issued, directed to the Secretary of the Department. The summons would require the production of documents including documents relating to an incident that occurred on 1 December 2014 and subsequent events, including action taken by the Department. 1 December 2014 was more than 18 months after Comcare made its reviewable decision. At a directions hearing on 5 March 2015, I discussed the summons (and another summons) with Mr Munday and Comcare’s representative. Mr Munday says that the summons relates to an “ongoing case of institutional harassment that has occurred and which continues to damage my health and wellbeing”. Comcare does not oppose the issuing of the summons.The relevance of the summons The question to be resolved in this review is whether Comcare is liable, under s 14 of the SRC Act, to pay compensation to Mr Munday. The Tribunal has to make the correct or preferable decision having regard to the facts and circumstances as they are now. However, I do not think that the documents that the summons would require to be produced are relevant to those facts and circumstances. Mr Munday asserts that he is the victim of continuing institutional harassment—or (in the terms of the SRC Act) administrative action that was neither reasonable nor taken in a reasonable manner. Even if that is true in relation to the 1 December 2014 incident and subsequent events, I do not think it is relevant to the administrative action with which this review is concerned, which occurred before Comcare made its reviewable decision. The documents that Mr Munday seeks relate to events that he says have aggravated his condition. They can only be relevant to a claim regarding those events.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.