Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v May

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal of the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC) against a decision of the Full Federal Court, which had overturned a decision of a single judge of that court. The dispute concerned the interpretation of section 16 of the *Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004* (Cth) (the Act) and its application to a claim for compensation by Mr May, a former member of the Australian Defence Force. Mr May had been diagnosed with a form of cancer, and the question was whether his condition was a "disease" for the purposes of the Act, and if so, whether it was attributable to his service.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Full Federal Court had erred in its construction of section 16 of the Act. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether a diagnosis of a malignant neoplasm, which had not yet manifested as a clinically significant disease, could be considered a "disease" for the purposes of the Act. This involved an examination of the meaning of "disease" in the context of the legislative scheme for compensation for members and former members of the Australian Defence Force.

Bell and Gageler JJ, in their joint judgment, held that the Full Federal Court had correctly interpreted section 16 of the Act. Their Honours reasoned that the term "disease" in the Act encompassed a pathological process that had commenced, even if it had not yet become clinically apparent or symptomatic. They found that the legislative purpose of the Act was to provide compensation for conditions that arose out of or were aggravated by service, and that a malignant neoplasm, by its very nature, represented a pathological process that could be considered a disease from its inception. The Court therefore affirmed the decision of the Full Federal Court.