Coward v Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service

The applicant, a former serviceman, brought a claim against the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service, contending that his employment in the Defence Force contributed to the contraction or aggravation of his arthritis. This case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the term 'employment' in the context of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1971 and whether the Tribunal had erred in rejecting a probabilistic approach to determine if the applicant's employment contributed to his reactive arthritis.

The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of 'employment'. It held that the Tribunal had incorrectly limited the scope of 'employment' to periods when the applicant was engaged in authorised or expected activities, thereby excluding periods when the applicant was rostered off-duty but still residing at barracks. The Court noted that the applicant's employment should encompass all time spent at barracks, including periods when he was rostered off-duty but residing there. Consequently, the Court held that the Tribunal's finding that the applicant's employment had not contributed to his reactive arthritis was also flawed. The Court concluded that a time-based probabilistic analysis was a valid method to determine whether the applicant contracted the infection during his employment, and that the Tribunal's rejection of this approach was erroneous.

The Court dismissed the applicant's appeal in all respects except for the issue of the injury to his sacro-iliac joint. It vacated the orders of the Tribunal and substituted new orders that the respondent had no liability to make payments of compensation in respect of incapacity for the period from 31 October 1972 to 20 October 2005. The Court also ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs.