Tregear and Australian National University (Compensation)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by Comcare, which had accepted liability for the applicant's psychological injury, 'adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features', but subsequently determined that the applicant was no longer incapacitated for work from 26 June 2015. The applicant had ceased his employment with the Australian National University (ANU) on 30 August 2015, and sought further incapacity payments reflecting the difference between his former salary and that of a lower-paid position he subsequently took in the United Kingdom. Comcare rejected this claim, asserting the applicant was no longer incapacitated and had, by moving overseas, revoked the prospect of a suitable position at the ANU. The applicant sought review of these decisions.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant remained incapacitated for his substantive role as Head of the School of Music (SoM) as at 26 June 2015 and beyond his separation from the ANU on 30 August 2015. Further, the court had to consider whether it was reasonable, within the meaning of s 19(4)(f) of the *Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (the Act), for the applicant not to continue in the role of Head of the SoM. The court also had to ascertain whether the applicant was ever offered a proposed position of Director of Music and, if so, whether it was reasonable for him not to accept that role under s 19(4)(f) of the Act.

The Deputy President found that the applicant had not made an absolute recovery from his condition. The court reasoned that the applicant's role as Head of the SoM involved significant challenges, including chronic understaffing and lack of resourcing, which contributed to his injury. Given these ongoing issues and the applicant's partial recovery, the court concluded that it was reasonable for him not to continue in the demanding role of Head of the SoM. The court also addressed the proposed Director of Music role, finding that the evidence did not establish that such a position was definitively offered to the applicant.

The reviewable decision was set aside, and the matter was remitted for redetermination. The applicant was found to be entitled to incapacity payments in accordance with s 19(2) of the Act.