Hembury v Chief of General Staff

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Federal Court of Australia in *Hembury v Chief of General Staff*. The dispute concerned the appellant's claim for compensation under the *Defence Force Retirement Benefits Act 1972* (Cth) for a nervous shock injury allegedly sustained during his service in the Royal Australian Air Force. The appellant contended that the Chief of General Staff, as the relevant authority, had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the injury, thereby breaching a duty of care owed to him.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Chief of General Staff owed a duty of care to members of the Defence Force in relation to the provision of a safe working environment, and if so, whether that duty had been breached in the circumstances of the appellant's service. This involved considering the scope of the employer's duty of care in the context of military service, particularly in relation to psychological harm arising from the inherent risks and demands of such service.

The Court ultimately held that while a duty of care exists between the Chief of General Staff and members of the Defence Force, the appellant had not established a breach of that duty. The majority reasoned that the nature of military service inherently involves exposure to stressful and demanding situations, and the appellant's injury, while regrettable, did not arise from a failure by the Chief of General Staff to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks beyond those ordinarily associated with military employment. The Court distinguished between the general risks of military life and specific failures in providing a safe environment. The appeal was dismissed.