Terbizan and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant, Mr Terbizan, against a decision by the respondent, Comcare, to deny compensation for an adjustment disorder. The applicant contended that his condition arose as a result of administrative action taken by his employer concerning his employment. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant's adjustment disorder was caused by the administrative action, and if so, whether that action was taken in a reasonable manner.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it needed to ascertain what constituted the relevant "administrative action" for the purposes of the applicant's claim. Secondly, the court had to decide whether the applicant's adjustment disorder was suffered "as a result of" this administrative action, applying the principles established in High Court jurisprudence. Finally, the court was to consider whether the administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner.

The court reasoned that the relevant administrative action encompassed not only the notification of the decision to discontinue the applicant's role but also the decision itself, as it was nonsensical to consider the reasonableness of the notification without reference to the underlying decision. Applying the principles from *Comcare v Martin*, the court held that an injury is suffered "as a result of" administrative action if that action is a cause in fact of the injury. This requires establishing a causal connection where the employee would not have suffered the ailment if the administrative action had not been taken. The court noted that the psychiatrists agreed that the applicant would not have suffered the adjustment disorder if his employer had not informed him that his position was no longer required, thus establishing the necessary causal link. The court affirmed the decision under review.