Airservices v Zarb

Airservices Australia (Airservices) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Full Federal Court, which had affirmed a judgment in favour of Mr Zarb. The dispute concerned the interpretation of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the SRC Act) and, specifically, whether Mr Zarb was entitled to compensation for a 'disease' contracted by him, as defined by section 4(1) of the SRC Act, which arose from his employment with Airservices. The primary question was whether the disease was one to which his employment contributed to a significant degree.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Full Federal Court had erred in upholding the primary judge's finding that Mr Zarb's condition, a form of tinnitus, constituted a 'disease' within the meaning of the SRC Act, and whether his employment as an air traffic controller had contributed to that disease to a significant degree. This involved an examination of the statutory definition of 'disease' and the threshold for 'significant degree' of contribution.

The Court considered the nature of tinnitus and whether it could be characterised as a disease under the SRC Act, noting that it is a symptom rather than a disease itself. However, the Court ultimately found that the statutory definition of 'disease' was broad enough to encompass conditions that manifest as symptoms, provided they are an abnormal condition of a person. Crucially, the Court held that the primary judge had made no error in finding that Mr Zarb's employment had contributed to his tinnitus to a significant degree, as the evidence established a clear causal link between the noise exposure in his work environment and the onset and aggravation of his condition.

The appeal was dismissed.