Dalgrin and Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (Compensation)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a claim for compensation brought by the Applicant against the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. The Applicant sought compensation for injuries sustained in a bicycle accident during a competitive triathlon. The core dispute revolved around whether these injuries constituted an "injury" or "disease" as defined by the relevant legislation and, crucially, whether these injuries arose out of, or in the course of, the Applicant's Defence service.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the Applicant had suffered an "injury" or "disease" within the meaning of section 5A of the *Defence Force Retirement and Death Benefits Act* (DRCA). Secondly, the Tribunal had to ascertain if the Applicant's injuries arose out of, or in the course of, his Defence service, as contemplated by sections 5A and 14 of the DRCA.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Comcare v PVYW* and *Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd*, which concern the interpretation of "arising out of, or in the course of, employment." The Tribunal found that while the Applicant did suffer an "injury" as defined by the DRCA, his participation in the triathlon was not induced or encouraged by his employer. The Applicant's engagement in the activity was driven by his personal ambition to prepare for a potential future role within the SASR, rather than by any actual or perceived expectation from his employer regarding his fitness for his current duties. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the injuries did not arise out of, or in the course of, his Defence service.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the Reviewable Decisions, meaning the Applicant's claim for compensation was not granted on the basis that the injuries did not arise in the course of his Defence service.