Karabolovska v Comcare

The appeal was brought by Ms Karabolovska against Comcare, challenging the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming Comcare's decisions to cease liability for compensation under sections 16 and 19 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) for the aggravation of her major depressive disorder and to deny liability for compensation for her claimed aggravation of vision impairment. The Tribunal upheld Comcare's decisions, leading to Ms Karabolovska's appeal to the court on questions of law concerning the adequacy of the Tribunal's reasons for its decisions.

The court had to determine whether the Tribunal's reasons for its decisions met the legal standards required under section 43(2B) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). Specifically, the court assessed if the Tribunal's written reasons included its findings on material questions of fact and a reference to the evidence or other material on which those findings were based. The court also had to consider if the Tribunal's reasons were sufficient to ascertain whether the Tribunal had fallen into reviewable error.

The court found that while the Tribunal's reasons for affirming the decision regarding the vision impairment were adequate, the reasons for affirming the decision regarding the major depressive disorder were inadequate. This inadequacy constituted an error of law. The court based its decision on the precedent set in Dornan v Riordan, which held that a substantial failure to state reasons for a decision, when a statement of reasons is required by statute, is an error of law.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed in part. The court dismissed the appeal regarding the vision impairment decision but allowed the appeal concerning the major depressive disorder decision. The matter concerning the major depressive disorder was remitted to the Tribunal for rehearing by a differently constituted Tribunal. Costs were reserved, with the parties to submit a proposed timetable for the filing of short written submissions on costs if they could not agree on the appropriate order regarding costs.