Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Roberts

In Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission v Roberts, the Federal Court was asked to determine the meaning of the expression 'arising out of … the employee's employment' in the definition of 'injury' in s 4 of the Act, the construction and operation of s 6(1)(a) of the Act, and the sufficiency of the Tribunal's reasons for decision. Ms Roberts, who was enlisted in the RAAF, alleged that she was indecently assaulted by a colleague while she was living on base. She subsequently suffered a psychiatric condition and was medically discharged from the RAAF. The Tribunal found that the alleged assault had taken place, and the sole question for the Tribunal was whether the assault was an injury 'arising out of, or in the course of' the respondent's employment within the meaning of the Act.

The Court held that the respondent pointed to the decision of Cowdroy J in Coward v Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service [2006] FCA 840, in which his Honour took an expansive view of the scope of military service in the context of living in barracks. The Court found that the requirement asserted by the applicant that the employee must show some elevation of the risk of the injury sustained, which elevation must result from the employment, was mistaken. Instead, it is enough that there can be shown, as a matter of common sense, some substantial link or connection with the employment which is causal and not merely temporal. The Court also found that s 6(1)(a) compelled the rejection of the applicant's case. The Court dismissed the application with costs and varied the time for filing an application to appeal to 29 January 2007.