Calman v Commissioner of Police

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a police officer's entitlement to compensation. The appellant, a Senior Constable, claimed he was "hurt on duty" due to a pre-existing anxiety disorder being aggravated by information received at work regarding a transfer. This resulted in his absence from duty for a period, for which he sought compensation and classification as "hurt on duty". The Commissioner of Police, through a delegate, refused the claim, a decision upheld by the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal and subsequently by the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the appellant's condition constituted an "injury" under the relevant legislation and, more specifically, whether he was "hurt on duty" as defined by the *Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906* (NSW). This required the Court to consider the relationship between the definition of "hurt on duty" and the broader provisions of the *Workers' Compensation Act 1987* (NSW), which were intended to be mirrored in the police compensation scheme. The Court also had to determine the procedural pathway for vindicating such an entitlement, including the role of the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal.

The High Court's reasoning focused on the legislative intent behind the amendments to the police compensation scheme in 1979. The Court noted that the purpose was to ensure police officers were compensated in circumstances where a worker under the *Workers' Compensation Act* would be entitled to compensation. The definition of "hurt on duty" was specifically designed to align with the conditions for compensation under the *Workers' Compensation Act*. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in its approach by focusing solely on the definition of "hurt on duty" without adequately considering whether the appellant's condition, if it were a worker, would have entitled him to compensation under the *Workers' Compensation Act*.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and the Tribunal. The matter was remitted to the Government and Related Employees Appeal Tribunal for further consideration in accordance with the legal principles articulated by the High Court. The appellant was awarded costs.