Phillips and Australian Capital Territory (Compensation)

This matter came before the Tribunal concerning a claim for compensation by the Applicant, Ms. Phillips, against the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute centred on whether Ms. Phillips had suffered an ailment or injury arising out of or in the course of her employment, specifically relating to achilles tendonitis/tendinopathy. The core of the case involved determining the nature of her condition and its connection to her work.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were multifaceted. Firstly, it was necessary to ascertain whether the Applicant's condition constituted an "ailment" or an "injury (other than a disease)" under the relevant legislation. If it was deemed an injury other than a disease, the Tribunal had to determine if this injury arose out of or in the course of her employment, considering whether it occurred at her place of work, during an ordinary recess, or while undertaking an activity associated with her employment or at the direction of the Commonwealth. Alternatively, if the condition was classified as an ailment, the Tribunal was required to assess whether her employment had significantly contributed to its development.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on distinguishing between an "injury simpliciter" and a "disease" as defined by the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act). An injury simpliciter requires a causal or temporal connection with employment, often involving a sudden and ascertainable physiological change. A disease, conversely, requires significant contribution from employment. The Tribunal considered the Applicant's employment duties and break arrangements, noting that she was not required to take breaks at specific times and could do so at irregular intervals. Ultimately, the Tribunal found that the Applicant did not suffer an "injury" as defined by section 14 of the SRC Act.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the Respondent was not liable to pay compensation to the Applicant for the claimed injury. The Reviewable Decision was affirmed.