Haywood and Comcare (Compensation)

Case

[2016] AATA 667

31 August 2016


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Haywood and Comcare (Compensation) [2016] AATA 667 [2016] AATA 667 31 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application by Mr Gregory Haywood to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of Comcare's decision to affirm its determination that it was not liable to pay compensation to Mr Haywood under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act). Mr Haywood had claimed compensation for an anxiety disorder, which Comcare conceded was a "disease" contributed to by his employment. The central dispute was whether Mr Haywood's disease was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment, which would exclude it from the definition of "injury" under section 5A of the SRC Act.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the counselling session conducted by Mr Haywood's supervisor and another officer constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment. Secondly, the Tribunal considered whether the counselling session was tainted by bias, specifically whether a fair-minded observer could reasonably apprehend that the decision-maker did not bring an impartial mind to the decision to counsel Mr Haywood.

The Tribunal found that the counselling session, and the actions of Mr Haywood's supervisor and another officer during that session, constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment. The Tribunal rejected Mr Haywood's claims of apprehended bias, finding no evidence that Mr Spencer, who participated in the counselling, held any pre-existing negative opinion of Mr Haywood or his work. The Tribunal accepted Mr Spencer's evidence that he had no recollection of prior dealings with Mr Haywood that would suggest bias. Consequently, Mr Haywood's disease was excluded from the definition of "injury" under section 5A of the SRC Act.

As a result of these findings, the Tribunal affirmed Comcare's decision. Comcare was therefore not liable to pay compensation to Mr Haywood for his adjustment disorder.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Employment Law

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Procedural Fairness

  • Judicial Review

  • Causation

  • Standing

  • Natural Justice

  • Statutory Construction

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

2

Cases Cited

9

Statutory Material Cited

2

Keys and Comcare [2011] AATA 277
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48