Hunt and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the Applicant against a decision by the Respondent, Comcare, regarding compensation for a work-related injury. The Applicant, who had been employed by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) as an Assurance Officer, suffered a neck and arm injury in February 2004. The core of the dispute revolved around the calculation of the Applicant's Average Weekly Earnings (AWE) for compensation purposes, specifically whether this calculation should be based on her potential earnings at the ATO or her actual, lower earnings from subsequent employment.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Applicant had failed to engage in suitable employment with the ATO and, consequently, whether her compensation should be assessed based on her potential earnings at the ATO or her actual post-injury earnings. The Applicant contended that her failure to continue in her ATO employment was reasonable in the circumstances, arguing that her compensation should reflect her actual reduced earnings. Comcare, conversely, argued that the Applicant had not engaged in suitable employment and that her potential ATO earnings were the correct basis for calculation.

The Deputy President found that the Applicant was capable of working approximately 22 hours per week. The court reasoned that the Delegate's calculations had been based on the Applicant's potential earnings at the ATO, which were higher than her actual earnings from subsequent employment. However, the court determined that the Applicant's failure to continue with the ATO was reasonable in the circumstances. Therefore, the reviewable decision was set aside and the matter remitted to Comcare for redetermination, with the Applicant's Average Weekly Earnings to be calculated based on her actual earnings from 1 July 2013 to 3 April 2019.