Mununggurr v Comcare

The applicant, an employee of the Commonwealth, seeks a declaration that the second respondent, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), has jurisdiction to determine her entitlement to permanent impairment compensation for major depressive disorder (MDD), as well as an order setting aside the AAT's decision of 28 June 2019. The applicant argues that the AAT should have considered her claim for compensation in respect of MDD, a condition distinct from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which Comcare had previously accepted as the cause of her psychiatric injury. The central legal issues in this case are whether the AAT had jurisdiction to consider the applicant's claim for permanent impairment compensation for MDD and if the AAT failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not considering the claim. The applicant argues that the AAT's jurisdiction is not constrained by how Comcare construes the claim and that the claim must be construed as a whole.

The AAT determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant's claim for permanent impairment compensation for MDD, as liability had never been accepted by Comcare for this condition. The AAT found that the applicant's claim for compensation should have been resolved by her lodging a fresh claim for MDD or notifying the respondent and the Tribunal of her intention to ventilate the jurisdictional point prior to the substantive hearing. The AAT held that its approach to this issue was entirely consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) and relevant authorities. The AAT concluded that the applicant's entitlement to compensation for her MDD could have been dealt with by the Tribunal if she had simply asked Comcare to determine whether it accepted liability for MDD. The AAT found no error of law in its decision and dismissed the application.

In this case, the AAT determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant's claim for permanent impairment compensation for MDD, as liability had never been accepted by Comcare for this condition. The AAT found that the applicant's claim for compensation should have been resolved by her lodging a fresh claim for MDD or notifying the respondent and the Tribunal of her intention to ventilate the jurisdictional point prior to the substantive hearing. The AAT held that its approach to this issue was entirely consistent with the text, structure, and purpose of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) and relevant authorities. The AAT concluded that the applicant's entitlement to compensation for her MDD could have been dealt with by the Tribunal if she had simply asked Comcare to determine whether it accepted liability for MDD. The AAT found no error of law in its decision and dismissed the application.