Brennan v Comcare

In *Brennan v Comcare*, the applicant, Brennan, sought to appeal a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had affirmed the respondent, Comcare's, decision to reject Brennan's claim for compensation for a psychiatric injury. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the AAT had erred in law in its interpretation and application of section 14(1) of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the Act). Specifically, the court had to determine whether the AAT had correctly construed the phrase "suffered injury" within the context of the applicant's claim for a psychiatric disorder, and whether the AAT had properly considered the causal connection between Brennan's employment and his condition.

Deane and Gaudron JJ held that the AAT had made an error of law. Their Honours reasoned that the AAT had failed to properly consider the evidence before it regarding the applicant's psychiatric condition and its relationship to his employment. The court emphasised that for the purposes of section 14(1) of the Act, an injury includes a disease, and a disease can manifest as a psychiatric disorder. The AAT's approach had, in their view, unduly narrowed the scope of what constitutes an injury under the Act and had not adequately addressed the question of whether the employment was a contributing factor to the applicant's condition.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the AAT's decision and remitting the matter to the AAT for redetermination according to law.