Case: Lang v Comcare (2007) 94 ALD 141
Outcome: cited
The Tribunal has an obligation to give reasons that make it possible to understand its reasoning process. Failure to do so is an error of law ( Lang v Comcare (2007) 94 ALD 141 at [54]-[55] per Stone J citing TelePacific Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2005) 218 ALR 85). This includes an obligation to give reasons for rejecting evidence that is plainly central to a party's claim and crucial to a medical report that supported that claim ( Lang at [54] per Stone J). As was pointed out by Stone J in Lang at [53] [55], the Tribunal is entitled to accept or reject the respective pieces of evidence before it or to accord certain pieces of evidence different weight. It is under no obligation to refer to all of the evidence before it. There is no obligation to make a finding on every question of fact that may be regarded as objectively material. The Tribunal is entitled to refer to all the medical reports, as Mr Sellick says the Tribunal did and to accept and reject evidence as it sees fit. The Tribunal is entitled to reject medical evidence or simply to prefer contrary medical evidence. It is obliged, however, to include in its reasons findings on all material questions of fact. Where a failure to give reasons makes it impossible to understand the Tribunal's reasoning process, that is an error of law. 71 Further, the Tribunal did not explain how Australia Post was liable under the SRC Act. The notice and the claim referred to right shoulder pain which had resolved. The first reviewable decision can, read beneficially to Mr Sellick, be said to have included reference to the additional conditions in that it included a reference to Dr Shroot's and Dr Chew's medical certificates of 2004 that diagnosed some upper back pain and minor soft tissue injury to his thoracic spine. However, those conditions were found to have resulted in pain in a different area to that the subject of the claim, the mid-thoracic spine. The degenerative spinal condition was a pre-existing condition. While injury or disease of the thoracic spine was referred to in the first reviewable decision, it was not the subject of that decision. It was referred to in the context of pre-existing conditions which were not relevant to the claimed injury. In finding liability under the SRC Act for the additional conditions which had not been the subject of a notice of injury (s 53), claim for compensation (s 54), a determination under s 60, the first reviewable decision (s 62) and an application to the Tribunal (s 64), the Tribunal failed to observe the limitations on its jurisdiction flowing from these sections of the SRC Act and the procedural prerequisites to entitlement to compensation under the SRC Act ( Lang at [41] [43]; Lees at [35]). 72 The medical opinion accepted by the Tribunal, given some two years after the claimed injury, was that the additional conditions were aggravated by Mr Sellick's work duties. The Tribunal does not explain how the claimed pain and injury of 2002 which had resolved resulted in the additional conditions which, in turn, were the reason for Mr Sellick's ongoing pain. The 2004 diagnoses were made well after the injury he sustained in 2002. Mr Sellick has not demonstrated how they fulfil the claim requirements of the SRC Act. It is impossible to understand from the Tribunal's reasons the reasoning process that led it to conclude that Australia Post continued to be liable for a claimed injury that had resolved and where the claimed symptoms of that injury had resolved. The Tribunal accepted that the additional conditions were caused by or rendered symptomatic by Mr Sellick's work duties but did not explain the connection with the specific claim. Failure to consider issues critical to the validity of its decision is a failure to address the correct legal question which is an error of law ( Australian Postal Corporation v Barry [2006] 44 AAR 186 at [23] [24]). There is an error of law where the Tribunal's reasoning is impossible to understand ( Lang at [55]). 73 The Tribunal failed to give reasons for its conclusion that Australia Post was liable under the SRC Act. The Tribunal is obliged to give reasons for its decision (s 43(2) of the AAT Act). While not obliged to make a finding on every question of fact that is objectively material to the Court conducting judicial review ( Minister for Immigration &amp; Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf [2001] HCA 30 ; (2001) 206 CLR 323 at [87] [97] ; Lang at [53]), the Tribunal is obliged to include its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based (s 43(2B) of the AAT Act).