Hart v Comcare

In *Hart v Comcare*, the applicant, Mr Hart, sought to appeal a decision of the Full Federal Court which had affirmed a decision of a single judge of the Federal Court. The dispute concerned Mr Hart's claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the SRC Act) for a psychological injury he alleged arose out of or in the course of his employment with the Australian Federal Police. Comcare had denied liability for the claim.

The High Court was required to determine whether the Full Federal Court had erred in its interpretation of section 14(1) of the SRC Act, specifically in relation to the meaning of "injury" and whether a psychological condition arising from a "reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner" in relation to the employee's employment could constitute a compensable injury under the Act. The central question was whether the exclusion in section 5A(1) of the SRC Act, which excludes certain conditions from being considered an "injury" for the purposes of the Act, applied to psychological conditions.

The High Court, comprising Gleeson CJ and Gummow J, held that the Full Federal Court had correctly interpreted section 14(1) and section 5A(1) of the SRC Act. Their Honours reasoned that the exclusion in section 5A(1) was intended to apply to all injuries, including psychological ones, and that a condition arising from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner was not a compensable injury under the Act. The Court affirmed the principle that the SRC Act provides a statutory scheme for compensation, and its terms must be applied as written.

The appeal was dismissed.