Lovelock v The Queen

The case of Lovelock v The Queen was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The appellant, Capital Territory Health Commission, sought to appeal the decision of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal, which had ruled in favour of the respondent, Susan Maria Cavanagh. The central issue in the case was whether the proposed movement from Canberra to a warmer climate by the respondent could be considered as "medical treatment" under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. This in turn would determine the appellant's liability for the cost of the move under section 37(1) of the Act.

The court was required to decide two primary legal issues: first, whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to reconsider the determination of the Commissioner for Employees' Compensation, and second, whether the movement to a warmer climate could be classified as "medical treatment" within the meaning of the Act. The appellant argued that since the respondent had not yet obtained the medical treatment in relation to her injury, there was no matter or question arising under the Act for determination. They also contended that the movement to a warmer climate did not constitute "medical treatment" as defined in the Act.

The court found that the appellant's first argument was flawed, as the question of whether the movement constituted "medical treatment" was indeed a matter arising under the Act. The court rejected the appellant's highly technical interpretation of the Act and held that the Commissioner had the authority to determine all matters and questions arising under the Act, including the question of what constitutes "medical treatment". The court further held that the Tribunal had erred in finding that mere movement from one climate to another could constitute "medical treatment" for the purposes of the Act. The court found that "medical treatment" under the Act required the doing of something by someone to or for the employee concerned, and the movement to a warmer climate did not meet this requirement.

The appeal was allowed, the order of the Commonwealth Employees' Compensation Tribunal was set aside, and the order for costs made by the Tribunal in favour of the respondent was also set aside. The court made no order as to costs in the proceedings.