Case: Industry Research and Development Board v Bridgestone Australia Ltd [2004] FCAFC 56 ; (2004) 136 FCR 47
Outcome: applied
regard to at least some of the evidence led before the Tribunal, supervisors of the applicant employed by the respondent and those associated with implementing his rehabilitation scheme possibly together with the members of Tribunal may have formed the view that the applicant was an extremely difficult person at best indifferent to the efforts of those trying to rehabilitate him and perhaps even unworthy of any sympathy. The Tribunal may also have found entirely unattractive the suggestion that the applicant's consumption of narcotic drugs to deal with the symptoms it thought were grossly exaggerated could be thought to justify, because it provided a reasonable excuse, his failure to comply with the rehabilitation program. However the SRC Act is beneficial legislation intended to operate for the benefit of injured employees whatever their personal attributes. If in fact the applicant's drug consumption prevented him from travelling to work then a finding to that effect would at least raise a question about whether there existed a reasonable excuse. In my opinion, the Tribunal was under a duty to consider the argument and reach and express a conclusion about it. It failed to address a case of substance advanced on behalf of the applicant and, in so doing, erred in law: Industry Research and Development Board v Bridgestone Australia Ltd [2004] FCAFC 56 ; (2004) 136 FCR 47 per Tamberlin, Sackville and Selway JJ at [26]. It is unnecessary to address the other grounds seeking to impugn the Tribunal's decision affirming, indirectly, the decision to suspend the applicant's rights to compensation. I deal briefly with the Tribunal's decision concerning compensation for cleaning services. The only ground challenging the Tribunal's affirming, indirectly, the respondent's decision that it was no longer liable to pay compensation for household cleaning services, was that the Tribunal did not give reasons for doing so. However, as best I can glean from the transcript, the challenge to that decision assumed no real prominence at the hearing before the Tribunal. Whether or not the applicant was entitled to compensation for household cleaning depended upon whether his work related injury limited his capacity to clean himself. As I have already explained, the Tribunal rejected, in fairly robust terms, the applicant's evidence about the disabling effect of his injury. Necessarily this involved a rejection of the contention that his injury prevented him from undertaking household cleaning. Little more was probably required by the Tribunal to indicate its rejection of the applicant's claim that the compensation for household cleaning services should have continued. I am not satisfied that the Tribunal erred, in this respect, as alleged. I propose to set aside the Tribunal's decision in relation to the suspension of rights to compensation and remit the matter but otherwise dismiss the appeal and application. As the applicant has had substantial success in its appeal, he is, in my opinion, entitled to his costs. I certify that the preceding twenty-six (26) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Moore. Associate: Dated: 13 November 2009 Counsel for the Applicant: D Richards Counsel for the Respondent: P Jones Solicitor for the Applicant: Slater and Gordon Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor Date of Hearing: 22 October 2009 Date of Judgment: 13 November 2009 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2009/1290.html