Dunkerley v Comcare

Dunkerley was an employee of the Commonwealth who sought compensation for injuries sustained during the course of employment. The dispute reached the Federal Court of Australia, where it was determined whether the appellant, Dunkerley, was entitled to compensation following an injury sustained during a selection process for a job. The decision was made by the Selection Advisory Committee (SAC) and Comcare, the respondent, had refused compensation on the basis that the injury resulted from "reasonable administrative action" under section 5A of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) upheld this decision, leading to Dunkerley’s appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the SAC was legally bound to follow a particular policy concerning its activities, and if not, whether the actions taken by the SAC were reasonable. The court also had to consider whether the policy was inconsistent with the Australian Public Service (APS) values or the code of conduct in the Public Service Act 1999 (Cth). A secondary issue was whether the Tribunal's finding that the SAC had followed the policy meant that there was no need to determine if the SAC was legally bound to do so.

The court found no error in the decision of the primary judge. It held that the policy in question was not inconsistent with the APS values or the Public Service Act. Since the Tribunal found that the SAC had followed the policy and their actions were reasonable, there was no need to consider whether the SAC was legally bound to follow that policy. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered Dunkerley to pay Comcare’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, to be taxed if not agreed. This ruling was made under Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.