Dunstan v Comcare

In this case, the applicant, a former employee of the Commonwealth, appealed a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which had rejected his claim for workers’ compensation. The applicant alleged that his depressive illness was materially contributed to by his employment and the relationship with a co-employee. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the Tribunal's decision and determining if it erred in its application of the law. The key legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal had correctly assessed if the applicant’s employment contributed materially to his depressive illness and whether the Tribunal failed to consider the applicant's claim for periods after he returned to work in December 1996.

The court found that the Tribunal did not apply the correct legal test in assessing whether the applicant’s employment contributed materially to his condition. The Tribunal had merely considered the employment as the setting for the relationship and not as a contributing factor to the illness. Furthermore, the court determined that the Tribunal failed to address the applicant’s claim for periods after his return to work in December 1996, which constituted an error in law. The court concluded that the appeal should be allowed in part, and the decision of the Tribunal was set aside to the extent it had not considered the applicant's claim for ongoing incapacity. The case was remitted to the Tribunal, differently constituted, to be heard and decided again.

In its final orders, the court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the Tribunal’s decision, and remitted the applicant’s claims to the Tribunal for rehearing. The respondent was ordered to pay the applicant's costs of the appeal. The court emphasised the need for the Tribunal to correctly apply the statutory test for determining material contribution by employment to an ailment, and highlighted the importance of considering all relevant periods of claimed incapacity.