Please note: you will need to access the following legislation to complete the problem question below, and any other materials you think are relevant: Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)

Background Facts: Lena Horn achieved outstanding results in her computer science degree at Australian National University. As a result, she was hired by the Department of Human Services and appointed to the Centrelink Debt Recovery Team in Canberra in June 2023. Prior to her appointment, it was rumoured that Lena was involved with a group called 'Our Fearless Leader?' whose primary purpose was to distribute embarrassing memes of the Prime Minister via social media. Investigations by ASIO found no evidence of any wrongdoing on Lena's part. As part of Lena's salary package, she was given access to a car from the Department's Electric Vehicle (EV) fleet. She would drive from work to home every weeknight and park the vehicle in an underground car park in the group of townhouses where she lived. Fortunately, the carpark was equipped with charging facilities for EVs. On 4th February 2024 she was directed by the Head of the Department in which she worked, to go to the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water, on her way home from work and collect a secure laptop from the Department of Climate Change. Lena was required to bring the laptop back to the Department of Human Services the following day. On the drive to the Department of Climate Change a wombat wandered out in front of the car Lena was driving. Lena swerved to miss the creature and was successful. Unfortunately, the lane assist feature on the vehicle caused the EV to lurch and plough into the front yard of a house. Fortunately, the airbags deployed and saved Lena from serious injury. Lena managed to stagger from the wreckage just before the car burst into flames, burning down the nearby house as well. The fire burned for 24 hours and released a plume of toxic smoke into the air. Lena was rushed to hospital for observation. The doctors determined that Lena had suffered respiratory distress due to inhaling some of the toxic smoke from the fire. A police investigation cleared Lena of any wrongdoing.

Two days later she returned to work at the Department of Human Services. Initially, Lena found it hard to concentrate on her work and would suffer from headaches and abdominal pain, but she was sure she would soon be back to her old self. However, a week later the symptoms persisted. She consulted her general practitioner and was diagnosed as suffering from poisoning due to the presence of hydrogen fluoride and hydrogen chloride in her blood that must have been in the smoke from the car fire. Lena was referred to a prominent specialist who confirmed the general practitioner's diagnosis. The specialist prescribed complete rest and at least six months off work to ensure a full recovery. Lena wished to return to work as she had only just completed her six month probationary period. 'I don't have any leave to take', she exclaimed. The specialist was adamant that she take time off to recover and advised her to make a claim under Comcare, the Commonwealth Government workers' compensation scheme. The specialist filled out a Certificate of Capacity, as required by Comcare, and Lena lodged the Certificate along with all required forms and paperwork with Comcare. Lena's supervisor forwarded the GPS vehicle logs from the EV to Comcare. Those logs indicated Lena was driving in the direction of Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water at the time of the accident. Meanwhile, the Minister responsible for Comcare (Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations) had been under significant pressure from the media about the number of Commonwealth employees on workers' compensation. Nationwide News, in particular, had been running a persistent campaign against the Minister. Headlines such as Compo Bludgers Get Free Ride at Taxpayer Expense While Cost of Living Rises and Minister's Compo Shame were placing significant pressure on the government.

Appearing on ABC Radio Canberra on the 2nd March 2024, the Minister defended the government's record saying that, 'it is my policy that no claim for compensation through Comcare will be awarded unless it has merit. I will be instructing the Chief Executive Officer of Comcare that all claims for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act are to be thoroughly scrutinised. Any claims even remotely not meeting the requirements of the Act will be disallowed.' The next day, at a meeting with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Comcare, the Minister made it quite clear what the policy was on assessing Comcare claims. 'If there is any room for doubt, a compensation claim is to be dismissed', the Minister said. That same afternoon the CEO met with claims officers in Canberra and stated that, 'it is the Minister's policy that the amount of Comcare claims being approved should be reduced. Under no circumstances are claims to be allowed where there is even a small amount of evidence that the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act does not cover the injury or sickness concerned. Reasons for the disallowance of a claim should be brief and to the point. In fact, no explanations for the rejection are necessary.'

Two days later on the 4th March 2024, Lena's claim arrived on Lionel Hampton's desk. Lionel, a claims officer properly authorised to process claims under the Act, saw the name on the application and became angry. Lena had once been engaged to his cousin, Ella Fitzgerald. Lena had broken the engagement off when it came to light that Ella was involved with a cult that believed harvesting energy from the sun would lead to an imbalance in the harmony of the solar system. Lionel looked at the facts and noted that Lena was travelling home when the injury occurred. Without any hesitation, he noted on the file that the claim should be dismissed under s 6 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act) as follows: 6 Injury arising out of or in the course of employment: (1) Without limiting the circumstances in which an injury to an employee may be treated as having arisen out of, or in the course of, his or her employment, an injury shall, for the purposes of this Act, be treated as having so arisen if it was sustained: (d) while the employee was, at the direction or request of the Commonwealth or a licensee, travelling for the purpose of that employment. (1C) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), travel between the employee's residence and the employee's usual place of work is taken not to be at the direction or request of the Commonwealth or a licensee. Lionel made further notes on the file that stated, 'I know Ms Horn personally, and she never takes the direct route from the office of the Department of Administrative Services to her home. At times I have seen the vehicle she uses parked at Casino Canberra in the evenings on weekdays. I'm sure she would have been intoxicated at the time of the accident.'

Lionel further stated that, 'this misuse of a Commonwealth vehicle should be investigated. I do not consider the GPS vehicle logs taken from the EV to have any probative value in this matter as Ms Horn, with her background in computer science, could have easily tampered with them ' Lionel also stated that, 'the claim under s 14(1) of the Act for compensation as a result of injury due to the vehicle accident is denied. As already stated, the circumstances of the accident do not meet the requirements under s 6 of the Act, and possibly s 14(3) of the Act which states: 14 Compensation for injuries (3) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employee but is not intentionally self-inflicted, unless the injury results in death, or serious and permanent impairment.

Lionel sent the case file to an administrative assistant Billie Holiday, who processed the rejection of Lena's claim. Billie, being aware of the Minister's new policy and the CEO's comments on that policy, sent the following notification to Lena: Dear Ms Horn, Your claim for worker's compensation as a result of the injury sustained by you while driving a Commonwealth vehicle on 4th February 2024 is denied. Your travel was 'not in the course of your employment' as required by the Act and, as such, you are not entitled to worker's compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). The decision of Comcare is final. Kind regards, Billie Holiday. Lena received the notification of the rejection of her claim on 18th March 2024. She was shocked by the reply and notified her supervisor, who was also dismayed by the decision. However, her supervisor told her that she could not do anything about the matter. As a favour to Lena, she supplied her with the contact details of a lawyer who does pro bono work in the area of workers' compensation. You are that lawyer. Assume that Lena and her doctors have completed the correct paperwork and that the correct procedure was followed in submitting the application. Also assume that Comcare is NOT disputing that Lena's injuries were caused by the car accident.

Advise Lena fully on the following matters in Part 1 and 2 below: Part 1 - Review of the decision not to grant relief under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (excluding judicial review), and the procedures and any restrictions to be observed in mounting of those reviews. This part is worth 15 marks. Part 2 - Assume that the original decision-maker's decision is affirmed as a result of the appeals in part 1). Advise Lena on her standing to seek judicial review, any possible grounds of judicial review and any remedies available to her under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth). You are not required to investigate any avenues of common law judicial review in this part. This part is worth 35 marks.