In Bain v Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission
 AATA 884, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (Tribunal) was
satisfied that it had jurisdiction to review decisions which the
Commission had conceded could be reviewed out of time.
Mr Bain was injured during his Army Service in October 1969.
Claims for compensation and other relevant records were lost,
however determinations had been made on 19 April 1971 and 26
November 1975 rejecting the claims for compensation. A request made
in 1999 for an extension of time to request a reconsideration of
the determinations was subsequently refused.
By a decision given on 27 September 2006 (Bain and Military
Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission  AATA 822),
the Tribunal made a provisional decision on the following
The decision dated 16 May 1999 not to allow an extension of
time within which Mr Bain could request reconsideration of
determinations made in 1971 and 1975 is a reviewable decision.
Mr Bain made a claim for compensation on or about 10 December
1969 in which he referred only to his knee collapsing when he was
in his living quarters and did not refer to jumping from the back
of a truck.
Mr Bain made a further claim for compensation on or about 19
November 1974 in which he referred to an injury sustained as a
result of two events, namely jumping from the back of a truck and
the knee collapsing when he was in his living quarters.
By a further decision given on 21 August 2008 (Bain and
Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission 
AATA 730), it was decided that Mr Bain had not given an acceptable
explanation for the delay in seeking review of the determination of
26 November 1975. It was found that Mr Bain had rested on his
rights and did not pursue his claim for very many years. In all the
circumstances, the Tribunal was not persuaded that it would be just
to grant an extension of time in respect of the 1975
The position relating to the 1971 determination was noted to be
different, as Mr Bain provided an acceptable explanation for the
delay in pursuing his claim. Whilst the length of delay was
considered to be extreme, accepting that there were special
circumstances, the Tribunal did not think that the extent of
prejudice suffered by the Commission was as great as might
ordinarily result from such an extreme delay. It was therefore
considered that not granting an extension of time would cause Mr
Bain to suffer much greater prejudice from being unable to pursue
what, on the information presently before the Tribunal, was
apparently a meritorious claim.
A formal decision was delayed as the parties had requested the
opportunity to consider whether the Tribunal should remit this
matter to the Commission for reconsideration pursuant to section
42D of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975.
By its decision dated 3 October 2008, the Tribunal noted that,
rather than the parties making further submissions as to whether
the matter should be remitted for reconsideration under section
42D, the Commission had suggested that, in the unusual
circumstances of the present matter, the Tribunal should proceed
with the substantive application for review of the decision dated
19 April 1971. Mr Bain agreed with this proposed course of action.
The Tribunal was satisfied that it had the jurisdiction
notwithstanding that the Commission had not reconsidered the
primary decision on the merits. That was on the basis that there
had been a refusal to consider the request for reconsideration,
which constitutes a deemed decision reviewable by the Tribunal.
Phillips Fox has changed its name to DLA Phillips Fox
because the firm entered into an exclusive alliance with DLA Piper,
one of the largest legal services organisations in the world. We
will retain our offices in every major commercial centre in
Australia and New Zealand, with no operational change to your
relationship with the firm. DLA Phillips Fox can now take your
business one step further − by connecting you to a global
network of legal experience, talent and knowledge.
This publication is intended as a first point of reference
and should not be relied on as a substitute for professional
advice. Specialist legal advice should always be sought in relation
to any particular circumstances and no liability will be accepted
for any losses incurred by those relying solely on this
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Long experience representing many of Australia's leading employers has taught us that in employment litigation the identity of an employee's representative is a major factor in how employee litigation runs.
Treasurer Scott Morrison recently announced changes to a number of 2016 Budget superannuation contribution measures.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).