Coward v Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service [2006] FCA 840

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Coward v Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service [2006] FCA 840

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – compensation claim by veteran – whether Tribunal applied incorrect definition of employment – whether Tribunal erred by rejecting time-based probabilistic analysis of cause of infection Held: (1) The definition of 'employment' under the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) should include consideration of activities arising from the circumstances in which the employment is undertaken. (2) It is not appropriate to adopt a time-based probabilistic analysis where an applicant is unable to identify any activity, at least in a general sense, which has caused or contributed to the disease or injury.

Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971 (Cth) ss 7, 27, 29 Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) s 124 Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 (Cth) s 68 Comcare v Mather and Anor (1995) 37 ALD 463 referred to Commonwealth of Australia v Carter (1965) 7 FLR 223 referred to Commonwealth v Oliver (1962) 107 CLR 353 referred to Commonwealth v Wright (1956) 96 CLR 536 referred to Favelle Mort Ltd v Murray (1976) 133 CLR 580 referred to Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473 referred to Henderson v The Commissioner of Railways (Western Australia) (1937) 58 CLR 281 referred to Humphrey Earl Ltd v Speechley (1951) 84 CLR 126 referred to Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Commission v Wall [2004] FCA 1711 followed Military Rehabilitation & Compensation Commission v Wall [2005] FCAFC 127 followed Re Tully and Comcare (unreported, Administrative Appeals Tribunal, 4 October 1996) referred to Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2005] HCA 40 followed Treloar v Australian Telecommunications Commission (1990) 26 FCR 316 referred to