Goodricke v Comcare

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision made by Comcare, the respondent, concerning Mr Goodricke's entitlement to compensation. Mr Goodricke sought an order of review under the *Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977* (Cth) (ADJR Act), relying specifically on the ground that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision.

The court was required to determine whether the decision-maker, in proposing to cease Mr Goodricke's compensation, had acted without sufficient evidence or material to support the conclusion that he was no longer incapacitated as a result of his work-related injury. This involved an examination of the requirements of section 5(1)(h) and section 5(3) of the ADJR Act, which stipulate that the ground of review is made out only if the decision-maker was required by law to establish a particular matter and there was no evidence from which they could be reasonably satisfied that the matter was established, or if the decision was based on a fact that did not exist.

The court noted that Mr Goodricke bore the onus of proving that the requirements of section 5(1)(h) and section 5(3) were met. The respondent conceded that a decision to cease compensation requires the establishment of a particular matter, namely that the recipient is no longer incapacitated due to a work-related injury. However, the respondent argued that section 5(3)(a) is only satisfied if there is a complete absence of evidence from which the decision-maker could be reasonably satisfied. The court observed that the medical reports relied upon by the respondent indicated that the doctors did not relate Mr Goodricke's current symptoms to his Commonwealth injury, attributing them instead to an unrelated underlying condition, and that any employment-related aggravation had ceased. The proposed decision appeared to be based, at least in part, on this medical opinion.