Marshall and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned two applications brought by the Applicant, Mr Marshall, against the Respondent, Comcare. The dispute centred on whether Mr Marshall's adjustment disorder, which Comcare accepted was significantly contributed to by his employment and aggravated by certain events, constituted an "injury" for the purposes of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The applications were heard by Mr A. Maryniak KC, Member, of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine, in respect of each application, whether Mr Marshall's condition resulted from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. This involved considering the statutory definition of "injury" under section 5A of the Act, which includes specific exclusions for reasonable administrative actions. The Tribunal was required to assess whether the actions taken by Mr Marshall's employer fell within the scope of this exclusion.

The Tribunal's reasoning was guided by the High Court's decision in *Comcare v Martin*, which clarified that the purpose of the reasonable administrative action exclusion is to insulate legitimate human resource management actions, when undertaken reasonably, from workers' compensation claims. The Tribunal emphasised that the assessment of reasonableness must be based on an objective measure, rather than the subjective psychological reaction of the employee. To this end, the Tribunal was required to identify the specific administrative actions, the circumstances surrounding them, their impact on the employee, and the manner of their implementation to determine if they were taken reasonably. The Tribunal considered extensive documentary and oral evidence from the Applicant and psychiatrists engaged by the Respondent.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions made in respect of both applications.