Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43: Causation and Liability for Injury

In Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43 (9 November 2016) the High Court of Australia unanimously allowed an appeal from the Full Federal Court of Australia finding that the deterioration of the respondent (Martin's) mental condition was suffered as a result of administrative action undertaken by her employer. Therefore it may not constitute an "injury" for which the appellant, Comcare, was liable to pay compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)(the Compensation Act).

Background

During the period  January 2010 to March 2012, Ms Peta Martin was an employee of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (the ABC) where initially she worked in Renmark (South Australia) under the direct supervision of Station Manager Mr Bruce Mellett. It was during this period that she was allegedly bullied and harassed by Mr Mellett. In August 2011, Ms Martin applied for the position of "cross media reporter". During the application process, Ms Martin was interviewed by a selection panel which included Mr Mellett. 

When she was notified that she had not been successful in her application and that she would be required to return to her previous position under the supervision of Mr Mellett, Ms Martin “broke down” and was subsequently diagnosed with an “adjustment disorder”. Ms Martin then made a claim for compensation pursuant to the Compensation Act.

In December 2012 Comcare rejected any liability to Ms Martin for compensation. That decision was subsequently overturned by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) on 11 August 2014 (see Re Peta Martin and Comcare [2014] AATA 553). However, in Comcare v Martin [2015] FCA 4 (8 January 2015) Justice Griffith allowed Comcare’s subsequent appeal and dismissed Ms Martin’s notice of contention.

It should be noted that there was no dispute between the parties that Ms Martin suffered from an "adjustment disorder" at the time she made her compensation claim, or that her psychological condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment with the ABC.

The key question was the meaning of the exclusion of the words “a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment” from the definition of “injury” in s 5A of the the Compensation Act.

In the Federal Court

In  the Federal Court, on the question of causation, Justice Griffith found that the alleged bullying and harassment, and Ms Martin’s reaction to the notion of returning to work for Mr Mellett, were linked issues and that the AAT had therefore been correct in proceeding to consider whether the relevant exclusion in the section 5A definition of "injury" in the Compensation Act applied.

In the Full Federal Court

In Martin v Comcare [2015] FCAFC 169 (30 November 2015) the first part of the appeal the Full Federal Court focused on was the meaning of the words “suffered as a result of”. The issue thus was whether the AAT erred in deciding that Ms Martin suffered her adjustment disorder “as a result” of the administrative decision not to appoint her to the permanent position of cross media reporter. 

The second issue the Full Federal Court focused on was the meaning of the words “taken in a reasonable manner”.  That is whether the AAT erred in its approach to the question of whether the administrative action surrounding the decision not to appoint Ms Martin to the cross media reporter position was in fact “taken in a reasonable manner”.

The Full Federal Court (Siopis & Murphy JJ, with Flick J dissenting) allowed Ms Martin’s appeal on the first issue. The majority holding that the AAT’s decision was inconsistent with its factual findings and that it misconstrued section 5A(1) of the Compensation Act, and further that it did not take a proper approach to causation. The appeal was allowed on that ground. On the second issue however, the majority of the Full Federal Court agreed with Justice Griffith; with Justice Flick dissenting and of the view that he would have dismissed the appeal, holding that Justice Griffith was correct in his construction of s 5A(1) the Compensation Act and its application to the facts of the case.

Appeal to the High Court

Special leave to appeal to the High Court was granted to Comcare on 16 May 2016. The key grounds of appeal to the High Court were:

The majority of the Full Federal Court erred in concluding that the causal connection specified in the concluding part of the s 5A(1) of the Compensation Act (“suffered as a result of”) is not satisfied even where:

(i) it is accepted that the injury in question was caused by a particular factor (in the Martin’s case, the realisation that having missed out on a promotion, she would have to return to work under the supervision of a particular person); and

(ii) that particular factor was, subjectively and objectively, a consequence of the taking of the administrative action in question (in the Martin’s case, the non-promotion).

The Decision

In reaching its decision the High Court held that the Full Court had erred in construing the phrase "as a result of" in section 5A(1) of the Compensation Act as importing a "common sense" notion of causation. The High Court held that the causal connection required in section 5A(1) is met if, without the taking of the administrative action, the employee would not have suffered the ailment or aggravation that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment. 

In allowing the appeal the High Court made orders to the effect that the matter is to be remitted to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to determine whether (according to law) the administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner.

TimeBase is an independent, privately owned Australian legal publisher specialising in the online delivery of accurate, comprehensive and innovative legislation research tools including LawOne and unique Point-in-Time Products.

Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43 (9 November 2016) and High Court Notes and Summaries

Re Peta Martin and Comcare [2014] AATA 553

Comcare v Martin [2015] FCA 4 (8 January 2015)

Martin v Comcare [2015] FCAFC 169 (30 November 2015)