2.Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 30 November 2015, except insofar as order 2 sets aside order 5 of Griffiths J made on 8 January 2015, and in their place order that the appeal be otherwise dismissed.
3.The appellant pay the respondent's reasonable costs of the appeal to this Court and of the proceedings before Griffiths J and in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.
On appeal from the Federal Court of Australia
Representation
T M Howe QC with A P Berger for the appellant (instructed by Lehmann Snell Lawyers)
L King SC with L T Grey for the respondent (instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers)
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.
CATCHWORDS
Comcare v Martin
Workers compensation – Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), s 5A(1) – Meaning of injury – Where employee suffered aggravation of mental condition in reaction to perceived consequence of failure to obtain promotion – Whether aggravation suffered "as a result of" reasonable administrative action.
Words and phrases – "as a result of", "'common sense' approach to causation", "disease", "injury".
FRENCH CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ. This appeal concerns the causal connection required to meet the exclusion from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ("the Act") of an injury suffered by an employee "as a result of" reasonable administrative action. The causal connection was met in circumstances where an employee suffered an aggravation of a mental condition in reaction to a perceived consequence of her failure to obtain a promotion.
The Act
The Act makes Comcare liable to pay compensation in respect of an "injury" suffered by an employee if that injury results in incapacity for work[1]. As the Act stood in 2012, after amendment by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Act2007 (Cth) ("the Amending Act"), "injury" had the meaning given by s 5A and "disease" had the meaning given by s 5B.
[1]Section 14(1).
Section 5A provided:
"(1) In this Act:
injury means:
(a)a disease suffered by an employee ...
but does not include a disease ... suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment.
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection, reasonable administrative action is taken to include the following:
...
(f)anything reasonable done in connection with the employee's failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment."
Section 5B provided:
"(1) In this Act:
disease means:
(a)an ailment suffered by an employee;…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Comcare v Martin
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43
Case
[2016] HCA 43
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Comcare against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia concerning a workers' compensation claim brought by Ms Martin. Ms Martin, an employee of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, suffered an adjustment disorder which rendered her unfit for work. She alleged this condition was an injury for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth), arising from her employer's decision not to appoint her to a permanent position, which she feared would result in her returning to work under a supervisor with whom she had a poor and allegedly toxic working relationship.
The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Ms Martin's adjustment disorder constituted an "injury" as defined by the Act, specifically whether the aggravation of her mental condition was suffered "as a result of" reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. This required the Court to determine the appropriate approach to causation in the context of the Act, particularly when an employee's reaction to administrative action leads to a disease or aggravation of a disease.
The High Court allowed Comcare's appeal, setting aside the Full Court's orders. The Court held that the phrase "as a result of" in section 5A(1) of the Act required a common sense approach to causation. It found that while Ms Martin's adjustment disorder was a disease and she suffered an aggravation of that condition, the aggravation was not caused by the administrative decision itself, but rather by her subjective reaction to the perceived consequences of that decision. The Court clarified that the employer's conduct, in this instance the decision not to appoint Ms Martin, was reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. Therefore, the condition did not fall within the scope of compensable injuries under the Act.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia made on 30 November 2015, except insofar as order 2 sets aside order 5 of Griffiths J made on 8 January 2015, and in their place order that the appeal be otherwise dismissed.
3. The appellant pay the respondent's reasonable costs of the appeal to this Court and of the proceedings before Griffiths J and in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.
Background
Background to the litigation
For the purposes of the Act, an employee was taken to have sustained an injury constituted by a disease or an aggravation of a disease on the day of the first to occur of: the employee first seeking medical treatment for the disease or the aggravation; or the disease or the aggravation resulting in incapacity for work[3]. [3]Section 7(4).The facts Ms Martin was employed by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. She was initially appointed in 2010 to a position as producer of a local morning radio program in Renmark in South Australia. In that position, she was under the direct supervision of Mr Bruce Mellett, who presented the program. Ms Martin did not have a good working relationship with Mr Mellett. Mr Mellett evidently thought aspects of Ms Martin's work unsatisfactory. Ms Martin thought Mr Mellett bullying and harassing and thought their working environment "toxic". Mr Mellett denied Ms Martin's allegations of bullying and harassment and when she later made a formal complaint her allegations were found by management to be unsubstantiated. Ms Martin attempted to remove herself from Mr Mellett's supervision. She applied for a number of positions outside Renmark, but was unsuccessful. Then, in 2011, still holding the substantive position of producer of the local morning radio program and still based in Renmark, Ms Martin was appointed to act temporarily in the higher position of cross media reporter. In that position, Ms Martin was supervised by Ms Carol Raabus, who was based in Hobart. The position of cross media reporter in which Ms Martin was acting was advertised for permanent appointment in 2012. Ms Martin applied. Her main reason for applying was to avoid having to work again under Mr Mellett's direct supervision. Ms Martin was interviewed for the permanent position of cross media reporter by a selection panel which was chaired by Ms Raabus and which included Mr Mellett. The selection panel decided not to appoint Ms Martin to the permanent position. Ms Raabus informed Ms Martin in a telephone conversation that she had not been appointed. Their conversation then turned to Ms Martin returning to her substantive position as producer of the local morning radio program under the supervision of Mr Mellett. Ms Martin at that point, in her words, "broke down uncontrollably". She immediately went home. The next day, she sought medical treatment. Ms Martin was diagnosed as suffering from an "adjustment disorder", which rendered her unfit for work. After Comcare refused her claim for compensation, Ms Martin appealed the merits of Comcare's decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal There was no dispute before the Tribunal that Ms Martin suffered a disease within the meaning of s 5B(1). The Tribunal identified her disease as an adjustment disorder, appropriately described as a mental condition, and therefore as an ailment within s 5B(1)(a). The Tribunal found that Ms Martin was probably suffering from an adjustment disorder during the period in which she was acting in the position of cross media reporter. The Tribunal found that her mental condition deteriorated significantly when she was notified that she had not been appointed to the position of cross media reporter[4]. Ms Martin relied on the deterioration as constituting the injury which gave rise to her incapacity for work and which founded her claim to compensation. [4]Martin v Comcare (2014) 64 AAR 224 at 231 [37], 231-232 [42].
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
FRENCH CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by:
FRENCH CJ, BELL, GAGELER, KEANE AND NETTLE JJ