Hatfield and Comcare - [2010] AATA 848

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 848
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL ) No 2010/0507
)

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION
)

Re PETER HATFIELD

Applicant

And

COMCARE

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member
Date1 November 2010
PlaceCanberra

Decision The decision under review, in which Comcare rejected liability to pay Mr Hatfield compensation under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) for ‘adjustment reaction’, is affirmed.

.....................[sgd].....................
Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member

CATCHWORDS
COMPENSATION – psychiatric injury – exclusion from liability if injury as a result of ‘reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner’ – Applicant deployed on overseas posting – request for removal by host government – manner of removal – obligations under Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 – procedural fairness – investigation into alleged breaches of Code of Conduct – decision under review affirmed
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 5A(1),(2), 5B(1),(2), 7(4),14,
Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963
Comcare v Chenhall (1992) 37 FCR 75.
Re Kavanagh’s Application (2003) 204 ALR 1
Keen v Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Corporation (1998) 71 SASR 42.
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIZO [2009] HCA 37
Re Gilbert and Comcare [2009] AATA 224
Re Georges and Telstra Corporation Ltd [2009] 731
Re Radulovic and Comcare [2010] AATA 777
Repatriation Commission v Webb (1987) 13 ALD 421
Re Reubinson and Comcare [2010] AATA 676
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
South Australia v Slipper (2004) 135 FCR 259.
REASONS FOR DECISION

1 November 2010               Professor RM Creyke, Senior Member
1.      Mr Peter Hatfield was employed by AusAID, initially as a permanent employee, and after the age of 55 he worked under short-term, renewable contracts. While in Nauru on an AusAID posting under a twelve month contract that was due to expire on 2 February 2009, Mr Hatfield suffered a psychological injury. He sought compensation from Comcare on 5 March 2009 for a condition he described as ‘severe mixed anxiety and depression’, which he claimed he first noticed on 7 January 2009.
2.      On 9 September 2009, Comcare rejected the application for ‘adjustment reaction’ on the ground that the condition was not an ‘injury’ under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (‘Act’), since it found that the injury resulted from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner within section 5A(2) of the Act.
3.      Comcare upheld that view in its reviewable decision dated 22 December 2009. Mr Hatfield appealed that decision to this Tribunal on 8 February 2010. The Tribunal heard the matter on 1 September 2010.
Legal framework
4. To be eligible, Mr Hatfield must establish that he is seeking compensation in accordance with the Act ‘in respect of an injury suffered by an employee [which] results in … incapacity for work, or impairment’.[1]
[1] Act, s 14.
5.      To be an ‘employee’ requires, as relevant, that the applicant be ‘

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hatfield and Comcare

Details

AGLC: Hatfield and Comcare [2010] AATA 848
Case: [2010] AATA 848
Decision Date: 1 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hatfield brought an action against Comcare regarding a claim for compensation for psychiatric injury he suffered while on an overseas posting. The dispute centred on whether Comcare was liable for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) for the ‘adjustment reaction’ Hatfield experienced. The court had to decide whether the psychiatric injury was a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner, thus excluding Comcare's liability.

The court examined the obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963 in the context of Hatfield's removal from his posting and considered whether procedural fairness was observed in the investigation into alleged breaches of the Code of Conduct. The key issue was whether the administrative actions taken by Comcare constituted reasonable action in a reasonable manner, thereby excluding their liability for compensation. The court also needed to assess the fairness of the process followed during the investigation into Hatfield's allegations.

The court found that the actions taken by Comcare were reasonable and in compliance with the Vienna Convention, and that procedural fairness was observed in the investigation. The court concluded that the psychiatric injury was a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. Consequently, the decision to reject Hatfield's claim for compensation was affirmed. The court held that Comcare was not liable to pay Hatfield compensation for his psychiatric injury under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision under review, in which Comcare rejected liability to pay Mr Hatfield compensation under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) for ‘adjustment reaction’, is affirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.