Phillips and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application by Ms Phillips for an extension of time to seek a review of a decision made by Comcare. The original decision, dated 29 June 2015, determined that an ankle injury sustained by Ms Phillips on 25 November 2014 was not connected with her employment. The Tribunal, presided over by Deputy President Gary Humphries, considered the application for an extension of time, which was made approximately 14 months out of time.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to grant an extension of time for Ms Phillips to lodge her application for review, and, in considering this, the merits of her substantive claim that her injury was connected with her employment. The Tribunal was required to apply the principles governing extensions of time, as established in cases such as *Hunter Valley Developments v Cohen* and summarised in *Duong v Australian Postal Corporation*, which include assessing the applicant's explanation for the delay, any prejudice to the respondent, and the merits of the underlying application.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal considered the principles from *Hunter Valley Developments* and *Duong*. It noted that an applicant must provide an acceptable explanation for the delay and demonstrate that granting an extension would be fair and equitable. The Tribunal also considered the potential prejudice to Comcare and the merits of Ms Phillips' substantive claim. The Tribunal referred to the High Court's decisions in *Comcare v PVYW* and *Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd*, which established that an employer's inducement or encouragement of an employee's activity is a critical factor in establishing a connection between an injury and employment, beyond a mere expectation of the employee's presence in a particular location.

The Tribunal granted the extension of time.