Barry and Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for compensation by Mr Barry against Cleanaway Operations Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on whether Mr Barry's psychological condition, including anxiety, insomnia, and severe clinical depression, as well as physical complaints such as pains to the umbilicus, a seroma, scar tissue, and a paraumbilical hernia, arose out of or in the course of his employment with Cleanaway Operations.

The Tribunal was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to assess the reliability of Mr Barry's evidence regarding the alleged hernia episode in July 2016 and whether this condition was work-related, notwithstanding a previous admission of liability by the respondent. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether the identified stressors contributing to Mr Barry's psychological condition arose out of or in the course of his employment. Finally, the Tribunal was tasked with determining whether Mr Barry's employment significantly contributed to his alleged injuries.

The Tribunal reasoned that a determination under section 14 of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) by a respondent does not permanently bind that respondent to all factual findings made in an initial decision to accept liability. Therefore, the Tribunal was empowered to re-examine the facts concerning the alleged hernia episode. The Tribunal found that comments made by Dr Burke, an occupational physician, regarding Mr Barry potentially losing his employment did not arise out of or in the course of his employment, as they were made in Dr Burke's rooms and not during work duties. The Tribunal also found that the steps taken in reliance on Dr Burke's report, including the establishment of a rehabilitation program, constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner under section 5A(1) of the Act. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that it could not accept Mr Barry's evidence concerning the hernia episode and could not conclude it was work-related, based on the preponderance of both lay and medical evidence.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision regarding the alleged hernia episode in July 2016, finding that it was not work-related. Consequently, Mr Barry was not entitled to compensation for this condition. The Tribunal also found that the stressors identified as contributing to Mr Barry's psychological condition did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.