Messenger and Comcare (Compensation)

This case involved applications for workers' compensation by Mr and Mrs Messenger against Comcare. The Messengers sought compensation for psychological injuries allegedly sustained during their employment with Senator Lambie. Comcare had denied their claims, citing the reasonable administrative action exclusion under section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth). The matter came before Deputy President Britten-Jones of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine several legal issues. For Mr Messenger, these included whether the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* applied, specifically concerning the notice requirement under section 53. It also needed to ascertain if Mr Messenger suffered an ailment as defined by the Act, and if that ailment was contributed to to a significant degree by his employment, thereby constituting a disease under section 5B. Finally, the Tribunal had to consider if any such disease was a result of reasonable administrative action, excluding it from compensation. For Mrs Messenger, the issues were similar: whether the Act applied, whether she suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing ailment, if that aggravation was significantly contributed to by her employment, and if it arose from reasonable administrative action.

In relation to Mrs Messenger, the Tribunal found that while she had a history of depression prior to her employment, the evidence did not establish an aggravation of this condition during the period of her employment up to February 2017. Although she experienced stress and upset due to various workplace events, the Tribunal was not satisfied that these led to a recurrence or aggravation of her diagnosed major depressive disorder. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that any aggravation Mrs Messenger suffered was a result of reasonable administrative action, which, under section 5A of the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988*, meant it did not constitute a compensable injury.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions under review, meaning the claims for compensation by both Mr and Mrs Messenger were dismissed.