Comcare v Hart

[2004] FCA 1144

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Comcare v Hart [2004] FCA 1144

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Commonwealth employees – injury excluded from liability – failure to obtain promotion

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 s 4(1)

Golds v Comcare [1999] FCA 1481 applied
Rivard v Northern Territory (1999) 129 NTR 1 distinguished
Trewin v Comcare (1998) 84 FCR 171 applied

COMCARE v OLGA HART

ACD 3 of 2004

WHITLAM J
3 SEPTEMBER 2004
CANBERRA

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY	ACD 3 of 2004

On appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Mr G A Mowbray

BETWEEN:	COMCARE APPLICANT
AND:	OLGA HART RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE OF ORDER:	3 SEPTEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	CANBERRA

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal made on 10 February 2004 is set aside.

2.The decision of Comcare made on 4 January 2001 is affirmed.

3.There be no award for costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

ACD 3 of 2004

On appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal constituted by Mr G A Mowbray

BETWEEN:	COMCARE APPLICANT
AND:	OLGA HART RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	WHITLAM J
DATE:	3 SEPTEMBER 2004
PLACE:	CANBERRA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (‘the Tribunal’) given on 10 February 2004 in a proceeding instituted by the respondent, Olga Hart, under Pt VI of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (‘the Act’). In that proceeding the Tribunal determined that the applicant (‘Comcare’) was liable to pay compensation to Ms Hart pursuant to s 14(1) of the Act ‘for an adjustment disorder the onset of which occurred around July/August 2000’. The Tribunal also ordered that part of the costs of that proceeding incurred by Ms Hart be paid by Comcare.

2. The Tribunal commenced its reasons for decision with the following summary:

   ‘1.       [Ms Hart] had been employed by the Department of Defence (the Department) for some years when she made a claim for rehabilitation and compensation on 18 August 2000.  She said that she suffered from depression and anxiety and an adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood caused by events associated with her application for three positions.

   2.        Although [Comcare] accepted that she suffered from an adjustment disorder the claim was rejected on 30 September 2000.  Comcare was not satisfied that Ms Hart’s employment materially contributed to her condition.  Furthermore the exclusionary provision which provides that compensation is not payable for injuries which result from failure to obtain a promotion applied to Ms Hart’s case.  This decision was upheld on review on 4 January 2001.

   3.        The initial claim for compensation centred on events associated with Ms Hart’s lack of success with a number of job applications but over time its ambit has broadened.  The case presented to the Tribunal was a nature and conditions claim based on the cumulative effect of a…