By Holly Weston and Lazarus
Two recent decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT)
shed light on when the AAT will find action taken by an employer to
be 'reasonable administrative action' or 'reasonable
disciplinary action'. If such actions are found to have
contributed to an injury claimed by an employee, the claim may be
excluded from the definition of 'injury' under the Safety,
Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act). The two
decisions handed down by Senior Member Friedman are Re Steuregger
and Comcare Australia  AATA 757 and Re Bui and Australian
Postal Corporation  AATA 803.
By Emily Baggett and Brendan
In Josephine Black and Comcare  AATA 593, the Administrative
Appeals Tribunal considered whether impairments in relation to an
employee's neck and shoulders could be combined on the basis
that they resulted from one injury.
By Robert Brigden and Andrew
In Sellick v Australian Postal Corporation  FCAFC 146, the
Full Federal Court held the AAT did not have jurisdiction to review
claims regarding additional conditions made on top of those
provided in the original claim.
By Emma Crosby and James
In Fellowes v Military Rehabilitation & Compensation Commission
 HCA 38, the High Court overturned the decisions of the Full
Federal Court and the AAT to allow a claim for compensation for a
second injury which effectively gave rise to the same level of
permanent impairment as an injury for which the claimant had
already received compensation.
By Emily Baggett and Brendan
In Georges and Telstra Corporation Limited  AATA 731, the AAT
found that a transfer of work location, which caused a loss of
travel allowance, constituted 'reasonable administrative
action' under section 5A(2) and therefore precluded the
employee from obtaining compensation for his 'injury' under
section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
DLA Phillips Fox is one of the largest legal firms in
Australasia and a member of DLA Piper Group, an alliance of
independent legal practices. It is a separate and distinct legal
entity. For more information visit
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
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.
The FWC upheld summary dismissal of a worker who tested positive for cannabis, despite being denied procedural fairness.
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).