Understanding the Limits of Judicial Review in Workers’ Compensation Claims

Date: April 10, 2025

Rindeklev v Comcare [2024] FCA 1023.

Key Points:

• Ms Rindeklev made two claims for workers’ compensation in respect of workplace mental health injuries. Comcare denied liability for both claims. In October 2022, Ms Rindeklev sought review of the decisions but later withdrew her applications.
• In April 2023, Ms Rindeklev sought to re-litigate the previous withdrawn cases. The Tribunal refused to reinstate the applications.
• Ms Rindeklev then commenced proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia (FCA) and sought a review of the Tribunal’s decision to refuse reinstatement.
• The FCA dismissed the appeal.

Background:

Ms Rindeklev (applicant) made two claims for workers’ compensation in respect of workplace mental health injuries.

For the first claim in respect of alleged bullying, a delegate of Comcare affirmed a decision that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation. As to the second claim which was in respect of later events, a delegate of Comcare also affirmed a decision that Comcare was not liable to pay compensation.

The applicant sought review of the decisions by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, but later withdrew both Applications (as to the first on 18 October 2022 and as to the second on 23 October 2022).

In April 2023, the applicant sought to re-litigate the previous withdrawn Applications in the Tribunal. The Tribunal held a hearing to determine whether the Applications should be reinstated, but ultimately decided not to reinstate them. The applicant then commenced proceedings in the FCA and sought review of the Tribunal’s decision to refuse reinstatement.

The FCA concluded that the matters raised by the applicant in her submissions amounted to alleged errors of law which were orally explained and reformulated. The FCA concluded that other points raised by the applicant were either related to factual reasoning by the Tribunal, which did not constitute an error of law, or attempts to have the court decide aspects of the reinstatement Application itself. The FCA emphasised that it could not entertain such contentions due to the limits on its review. As a result, except for the issues specifically addressed, the FCA upheld the objection to competency and dismissed the Application regarding other matters.

The Tribunal’s reasoning

The FCA noted the following in relation to the Tribunal’s reasoning:

• The Tribunal was required to consider whether it should reinstate the Applications of the applicant who previously withdrew them.
• The Tribunal explored various procedural and personal factors surrounding the applicant’s decision to withdraw. The Senior Member of the Tribunal who had previously overseen earlier directions hearings was the same member who ultimately reviewed and refused the reinstatement Application.
• The Tribunal’s reasoning process involved examining the legal grounds for reinstatement, particularly focusing on whether the Applications were dismissed in error and whether it should exercise its discretion to grant reinstatement. The applicant argued that she withdrew the Applications due to personal and strategic reasons, such as concerns over the safety of her co-worker’s testimony and the potential emotional impact on her family, particularly her adult children.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant’s withdrawal was a voluntary decision based on a variety of personal and forensic reasons, and found no error in its earlier handling of the case, specifically in its management of the co-worker’s statement and the evidence involved. The Tribunal determined that the applicant’s withdrawal did not constitute an error by the Tribunal, and therefore, there was no legal basis to reinstate her Applications. In essence, the Tribunal concluded that a change of mind or later regret was insufficient to justify reinstatement, as it did not meet the necessary legal criteria for error.

The Law:

The nature of the review conducted by the FCA

Section 44(1) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) provided that a party to proceedings before the Tribunal may appeal to the Court ‘on a question of law’. The FCA noted that where there is an appeal on the basis of an error of law in respect of an administrative determination, the court is required to exercise original, not appellate, jurisdiction and to do so in proceedings which are in the nature of judicial review Roy Morgan Research Centre Pty Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Vic) [2001] HCA 49.

The nature and extent of the Tribunal’s power to reinstate proceedings

The FCA noted that on her Application to reinstate the two Applications, the applicant was required to demonstrate that the proceedings had been ‘dismissed in error’, because section 42A(8) only applied to Applications to reinstate that are brought by a party ‘other than the applicant’ and section 42A(8A) did not apply.

A significant aspect of the way the applicant put her reinstatement Application

The respondent contended that the applicant effectively conceded that the proceedings had not been dismissed in error, and that the Tribunal found, in any event that the applicant had made a deliberate decision to voluntarily withdraw her Applications. While the FCA did not accept the respondent’s contention, it noted that the contentions highlighted the nature of the matters relied upon by the applicant in support of her Application for reinstatement. Having regard to the fact the applicant acted on her behalf and taking into account the whole of her submissions, the FCA considered she could not have conceded, in an informed manner, that her Applications had not been “dismissed in error” for the purposes of section 42A(10).

Conclusion:

Ultimately, the FCA found that the appropriate order was that the Application be dismissed.

Lessons Learnt:

This case highlights the importance of clearly understanding the legal framework governing reinstatement Applications, particularly the requirement to demonstrate that proceedings were dismissed in error. It also underscores the significance of carefully considering all personal and procedural factors before deciding to withdraw or reinstate claims.

Contact:

Download PDF here:  Understanding the Limits of Judicial Review in Workers’ Compensation Claims

« Back to Insights