Prowse and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Prowse against a decision by Comcare to deny liability for a psychological condition. The dispute centred on whether Ms Prowse's employment at the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet contributed to a significant degree to her condition, and if so, whether any administrative actions taken by her employer were reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner, thereby excluding Comcare's liability. The case was heard by a Member.

The legal issues before the court were whether Ms Prowse suffered from an ailment under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (Cth) (SRC Act), and if so, whether her employment was a significant contributing factor. Crucially, the court had to determine if the condition was caused by administrative action taken by her employer, and if that action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner. The court also needed to consider whether, in the absence of such administrative action, the condition would have arisen, and to establish the correct date of injury.

The court considered extensive medical evidence from various psychiatrists and a general practitioner, noting Ms Prowse's pre-existing psychological vulnerabilities and distressing personal events. Comcare argued that the primary causative events were administrative actions, specifically a direction regarding her working hours on 29 January 2015, and that these actions were reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner. The court acknowledged inconsistencies in Ms Prowse's evidence regarding flexible work arrangements and performance appraisals, but ultimately found that the administrative action taken on 29 January 2015 was the cause of the injury, and that this action was reasonable and taken in a reasonable manner. The court concluded that without these events, the injury would not have occurred, thus satisfying the "Martin test" for causation and triggering the exclusion under s 5A(1) of the SRC Act.