Holt v Comcare - [2004] HCATrans 290

[2004] HCATrans 290

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Adelaide No A267 of 2003

B e t w e e n -
VIVIENNE HOLT
Applicant
and
COMCARE
Respondent
Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
HAYNE J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON WEDNESDAY, 11 AUGUST 2004, AT 2.42 PM

MR P.A. HEYWOOD-SMITH, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear for the applicant. (instructed by Randle & Taylor)

MR P.J. HANKS, QC: Your Honours, I appear with my learned friend, MR S.C. COLE, for the respondent. (instructed by Sparke Helmore)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, Mr Heywood-Smith.

MR HEYWOOD-SMITH: If the Court please, this is an application appertaining to an Administrative Appeals Tribunal matter and it raises the issue of the responsibility of the decision-maker, in this case Comcare, when making a decision as to the reviewing of payments that are in place. It is appropriate that I very briefly spend a moment on the facts. I think that the Court has been provided with a chronology in the materials that have been filed by my instructing solicitor.

From that chronology the Court will note that the applicant joined the Australian Public Service in 1973 in Adelaide, moved to Canberra in 1974 with the Australian Public Service. In the year following her moving to Canberra she had significant health problems associated with a respiratory condition. She overcame those and about approximately 10 years later, having moved to a fairly higher position in the public service, she sustained significant health problems which led to her being retired from the Australian Public Service on medical grounds, the diagnosed condition being aggravation of severe chronic asthma.

A claim was made and accepted by Comcare at that time and, indeed, Ms Holt was superannuated out of the public service within 12 months. Nothing then happened for some 15 years and in October 2000 Comcare determined to cease liability on the grounds that it was not satisfied the applicant’s previous employment was still contributing to her underlying asthmatic condition. The matter was taken to the Tribunal, unsuccessfully, and from there to the Federal Court.

The applicant says that there are deficiencies on the part of the original decision-maker, the Tribunal, and of their Honours in the Federal Court as to the way the matter was approached. The basis for the determination was that the previous employment was no longer contributing to the asthmatic condition and critical in arriving at this conclusion were certain pieces of evidence. Firstly, that the applicant had suffered no major asthma attack for 15 years. That state of affairs, the applicant says, is quite consistent with her asthma being satisfactorily managed, as was the evidence, in a non‑work environment. Further, a Dr Goldney gave evidence that the stressors that were the aggravating factors back in 1985 would have resolved within a matter of months and a Dr Stevenson gave evidence to a similar effect that he had no…

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 Holt v Comcare

Details

AGLC: Holt v Comcare [2004] HCATrans 290
Case: [2004] HCATrans 290
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of *Holt v Comcare* concerned an appeal to the High Court of Australia by Mr Holt against a decision of the Federal Court of Australia. Mr Holt had suffered a psychological injury, which he claimed arose out of or in the course of his employment. Comcare, the respondent, had rejected his claim for compensation under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (the SRC Act).

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether Mr Holt's psychological injury constituted an "injury" as defined by section 5B(1) of the SRC Act. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the injury was caused by an "occurrence" that happened in the course of his employment, and whether that occurrence was a "normal incident of the course of employment".

The High Court, in a joint judgment, held that the injury sustained by Mr Holt was not caused by an "occurrence" that was a normal incident of the course of employment. Their Honours reasoned that the term "occurrence" in section 5B(1)(b) referred to a specific event or incident, rather than a general course of conduct or a series of events. They found that the events Mr Holt relied upon, while potentially stressful, did not constitute a discrete occurrence that was a normal incident of his employment. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Orders