Wiggins and Comcare (Compensation)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Wiggins against Comcare's decision to deny her claim for compensation. Comcare had accepted that Ms Wiggins suffered from an anxiety state which was significantly contributed to by her employment. However, Comcare determined that this condition arose from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) during one-on-one meetings with Ms Wiggins' team leader. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Wiggins' condition constituted an "injury" under the *Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988* (SRC Act), specifically considering the exclusion for reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.

The Tribunal was tasked with determining two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether Ms Wiggins' diagnosed condition of chronic adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood with features of traumatisation was an injury under the SRC Act, considering the exclusion in section 5A(1). This required an assessment of whether the condition would not have been suffered if the administrative action had not been taken. Secondly, the Tribunal had to consider whether the administrative action, specifically a counselling meeting, was taken in a reasonable manner.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles established in *Comcare v Martin* and *Lim v Comcare*, which clarify the causal connection required for the exclusion in section 5A(1). The Tribunal found that Ms Wiggins would not have suffered her condition if the counselling meeting on 21 February 2014 had not taken place. While the Tribunal accepted that the counselling meeting constituted administrative action and that the decision to hold it was reasonable given concerns about Ms Wiggins' contact with the SOS, it ultimately concluded that the action was not taken in a reasonable manner. This conclusion was based on the specific circumstances of the meeting, although the precise reasons for this finding are not detailed in the provided text.

Consequently, the Tribunal set aside Comcare's decision. It substituted a decision that Ms Wiggins suffered an injury and was entitled to compensation under the SRC Act. Furthermore, the Tribunal ordered that Comcare pay Ms Wiggins' costs and disbursements.