Arbon and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia regarding a claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) by the applicant, Mr Arbon, against Comcare. Mr Arbon sought compensation for papillary thyroid cancer, alleging it was caused by his employment as an electrician with the Weapons Research Establishment, which involved periods working at Maralinga where he was exposed to ionising radiation. The central dispute revolved around whether the statutory presumption in section 7(1) of the Act applied to his condition and, if not, whether his employment had contributed to his cancer to a significant degree.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the applicant's employment involved exposure to ionising radiation in a manner that engaged the statutory presumption under section 7(1)(c) of the Act. Secondly, if the presumption did not apply, whether the applicant's thyroid cancer was contributed to by his employment to a significant degree, considering the causation and the available epidemiological studies.

The court found that the statutory presumption did not apply because, although Mr Arbon had been exposed to ionising radiation during patrols into the prohibited areas at Maralinga, his duties as an electrician were confined to the Maralinga village, which was not disputed to be a contaminated area. The court accepted the expert evidence of Dr Tinker, who concluded that the applicant's radiation exposure was very low, in the vicinity of 0.26 mSv to 1.56 mSv, and that this level fell well short of the high doses associated with adverse health outcomes, posing no credible risk for the onset of his thyroid cancer. While Professor Ruff suggested a possible causal link, his evidence lacked quantification of the increased risk. The court applied the principle that causation requires actual persuasion and that a causal relationship between low levels of radiation and thyroid cancer had not been established as a matter of probability, deeming the estimated increase in risk to be negligible.

Consequently, the court affirmed the decision that the statutory presumption did not apply and that the applicant had failed to establish that his thyroid cancer was contributed to by his employment to a significant degree. The appeal was dismissed.