Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QIRC
  3. 2022
  4. Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 3) - [2022] QIRC 33

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 3)[2022] QIRC 33

Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 3)[2022] QIRC 33

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:

Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 3) [2022] QIRC 033

PARTIES:

Shaw, Trent

Appellant

v

Workers' Compensation Regulator

Respondent

CASE NO:

WC/2020/58

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator

DELIVERED ON:

10 February 2022

HEARING DATES:

26, 27 and 28 July 2021

DATES OF WRITTEN CLOSING SUBMISSIONS:

Appellant's submissions, 9 November 2021

Respondent's submissions, 30 November 2021

Appellant's reply submissions, 6 December 2021

MEMBER:

McLennan IC

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS:

  1. 1.The appeal is dismissed.
  2. 2.The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is confirmed.
  3. 3.The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of the Hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS' COMPENSATION – APPEAL AGAINST DECISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION REGULATOR – consideration of the psychiatric condition – consideration of when the psychiatric condition was sustained – whether the psychiatric condition arose out of, or in the course of, employment – whether employment was the major significant contributing factor to the psychiatric condition

LEGISLATION:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 11, s 32, s 131, s 141, s 545, s 558

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) s 132

CASES:

Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031

Fox v Percy [2003] 214 CLR 118

Kavanagh v Commonwealth (1960) 103 CLR 547

Linke v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 181

Morrison v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 065

Nunan v Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Co Ltd (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 119

R v Butler [2009] QCA 111

Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203

Scofield v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2018] QIRC 103

Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262

State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q–Comp and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447

Workers' Compensation Regulator v Guymer [2017] QIRC 080

Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No 2) [2021] ICQ 13

APPEARANCES:

Mr T Shaw, the Appellant in person.

Mr P B O'Neill of counsel, directly instructed by the Respondent.

Reasons for Decision

  1. [1]
    Mr Trent Shaw commenced as Principal of Kin Kin state school (the school; KKSS) in January 2010.  The school serves a small community in the Sunshine Coast hinterland.
  1. [2]
    In January 2015 KKSS was granted Independent Public School (IPS) status, notwithstanding that the school had been identified for a 'Priority Support Review' only a month prior.[1]
  1. [3]
    A tumultuous period for Mr Shaw and the school ensued.
  1. [4]
    The next four years saw an extended period of departmental support interventions and successive action plans to remediate issues identified,[2] two Ethical Standards Unit investigations and a review of the school's IPS status.
  1. [5]
    Further exacerbating matters was Mr Shaw's reticence to engage with Ms Janelle Reid, in her capacity as Assistant Regional Director.
  1. [6]
    The impact of various dysfunctional interpersonal relationships between Mr Shaw and several colleagues also reverberated throughout the small school staff. Ms Z,[3] a teacher at the school, made a formal complaint alleging that Mr Shaw had communicated or otherwise acted in an appropriate way towards her. There were difficulties in the professional relationship between Mr Shaw and Ms Y,[4] the school's Business Services Manager (BSM). Mr Shaw and Ms X,[5] a teacher aide at the school, were romantically involved for several years.  When their relationship ended, the residual ill-feeling between the pair spilled over to their workplace interactions.
  1. [7]
    Against that backdrop, one may be unsurprised that Ms Reid resisted Mr Shaw's entreaty to recommend him as a suitable applicant for promotion to a higher-band principalship position on the Gold Coast. Although Ms Reid had advised Mr Shaw that it may be prudent for him to alternatively seek teaching roles on the Gold Coast, due to the limited number of vacant principal positions at his current classification. 
  1. [8]
    By March 2019, Ms Reid had expressed her support for Mr Shaw to place his name on the aspirant list and provide an application for a position to Ashmore.[6]  However, Mr Shaw was ultimately unsuccessful for that available DP position.
  1. [9]
    The reason Mr Shaw so fervently pursued a transfer at level to the Gold Coast was in order to be closer to his school-aged children and former wife.
  1. [10]
    On 4 April 2019, a heated exchange took place at the school between Mr Shaw and Ms X.  That culminated in Ms X declaring that she would go on stress leave, as a result of Mr Shaw's treatment of her.  Mr Shaw told his Psychologist, Ms Jenifer Turner that "…he just can't take another investigation – especially one that involves his personal life.  He's had enough." 
  1. [11]
    Ms X made good on the promise to raise her concerns with the department[7] - though by that time Mr Shaw had himself commenced another period of extended sick leave, having again consulted his General Practitioner, Dr Lindsay Hantom the day after the altercation at the school.[8] 
  1. [12]
    Mr Shaw did not return as Principal of KKSS, finally resigning from that position on 18 February 2021.[9]

Claim details

  1. [13]
    Mr Shaw lodged an application for compensation (the application) with WorkCover on 20 June 2019.[10] 
  1. [14]
    His claim was in respect of having sustained psychological injury diagnosed as "Depression related to workplace stress and anxiety" on 5 April 2019.[11]
  1. [15]
    In the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 18 June 2019,[12] Dr Hantom stated that Mr Shaw was first seen for the injury diagnosed as "Depression related to workplace stress and anxiety" on 5 April 2019.
  1. [16]
    Dr Hantom had described the "Worker's stated cause of injury" to be:

Long standing stress related to his job as Principal of Kin Kin state school and difficult interactions with his supervisor from the department of education.  Has deteriorated this year resulting in him taking an extended period of leave and having to see a psychiatrist who has diagnosed major depression and commencing medication.[13]

  1. [17]
    Dr Hantom further noted "Pre-existing factors relevant to the diagnosis" to be:

 Has been seeing a psychologist for a couple of years to deal with workplace stress.[14]

  1. [18]
    Dr Hantom confirmed that opinion in the subsequent Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 16 July 2019.[15]
  1. [19]
    WorkCover rejected Mr Shaw's application in its decision of 25 October 2019[16] because "while there were instances where you felt you were consistently ineffectively supported by your Direct Supervisor regarding your career aspirations, after a review of all evidence WorkCover was unable to conclude that you were unsupported or your employer had acted unreasonably."[17] 
  1. [20]
    Mr Shaw applied to the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Regulator') to review that decision on 16 January 2020.[18] 
  1. [21]
    The Regulator confirmed WorkCover's decision on 20 April 2020,[19] concluding "on all the evidence that management action was both reasonable and taken in a reasonable way"[20] 
  1. [22]
    This had the effect of excluding Mr Shaw's application pursuant to s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the Act').[21]
  1. [23]
    Mr Shaw subsequently filed this appeal against the Regulator's decision on 18 May 2020.

What legal tests must be satisfied for Mr Shaw's appeal to succeed?

  1. [24]
    The definition of injury, per the iteration of the Act at the relevant time, was (emphasis added):

32    Meaning of injury

  1. (1)
    An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if -
  1. (a)
    for an injury other than a psychiatric or psychological disorder - the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury; or
  1. (b)
    for a psychiatric or psychological disorder - the employment is the major significant contributing factor to the injury.

…

  1. (3)
    Injury includes the following –
  1. (ba)
    an aggravation of a psychiatric or psychological disorder, if the aggravation arises out of, or in the course of, employment and the employment is the major significant contributing factor to the aggravation;

…

  1. (4)
    For subsection (3)(b) and (ba), to remove any doubt, it is declared that an aggravation mentioned in the provision is an injury only to the extent of the effects of the aggravation.
  1. (5)
    Despite subsections (1) and (3), injury does not include a psychiatric or psychological disorder arising out of, or in the course of, any of the following circumstances -
  1. (a)
    reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker's employment;
  1. (b)
    the worker's expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against the worker;
  1. (c)
    action by the Regulator or an insurer in connection with the worker's application for compensation.

Examples of actions that may be reasonable management actions taken in a reasonable way-

  • action taken to transfer, demote, discipline, redeploy, retrench or dismiss the worker
  • a decision not to award or provide promotion, reclassification or transfer of, or leave of absence or benefit in connection with, the worker's employment.
  1. [25]
    An injury arises out of employment where there is a causal connection between the employment and the injury.[22]  That point is disputed here.
  1. [26]
    Additionally, the employment must be the major significant contributing factor in the case of a psychiatric or psychological disorder.  That is also disputed.
  1. [27]
    An appeal such as this is a hearing de novo.[23] 
  1. [28]
    Mr Shaw bears the onus to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he sustained an injury within the meaning of the Act.  As explained by Deputy President Merrell in Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator:

The balance of probabilities test requires a court to reach a level of actual persuasion and that process does not involve a mechanical application of probabilities.[24]

What are the questions to be determined?

  1. [29]
    There is no dispute between the parties that:
  • Mr Shaw was a worker within the meaning of s 11 of the Act, during the relevant period; and
  • Mr Shaw has a psychiatric condition.
  1. [30]
    The questions to be determined are:
  • What psychiatric condition does Mr Shaw have?
  • When was the psychiatric condition sustained?
  • Did Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arise out of, or in the course of, his employment?
  • Was Mr Shaw's employment the major significant contributing factor to his psychiatric disorder?
  • Did Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arise out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with his employment?
  • Did Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arise out of, or in the course of, his expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against him?

Summary of Findings

  1. [31]
    For the reasons that follow, I find that:
  • Mr Shaw's psychiatric condition was "Depression, Anxiety Disorder", as diagnosed by Dr Hantom;
  • the psychiatric condition emerged in 2016 - though the expression of that ongoing condition fluctuated in severity, according to Mr Shaw's personal and work situation at any given time in the period between 2016 and 5 April 2019;
  • the events of 4 April 2019 did not give rise to any new psychiatric condition; and
  • the events of 4 April 2019 were not an aggravation of Mr Shaw's existing psychiatric condition.
  1. [32]
    On those grounds, Mr Shaw's appeal is dismissed.
  1. [33]
    However, in the event I am wrong - and either Mr Shaw's existing psychiatric condition was aggravated or a new psychiatric condition developed on 4 April 2019 - I have proceeded to consider further criteria under s 32 of the Act:
  • Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder did arise out of, or in the course of, his employment; and
  • Mr Shaw's employment was not the major significant contributing factor to his psychiatric condition.
  1. [34]
    Having found Mr Shaw's employment was not the major significant contributing factor to his psychiatric condition, his appeal would also be dismissed at that alternative juncture. Therefore, there is no further requirement to consider the following matters in this Decision:
  • whether Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with his employment; and
  • whether Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arose out of, or in the course of, his expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against him.

Evidence and submissions

  1. [35]
    Written closing submissions were directed in the order Appellant – Respondent – Appellant (in reply, on issues of law only).
  1. [36]
    The Appellant's written closing submissions were filed on 9 November 2021.
  1. [37]
    The Respondent's written closing submissions were filed on 30 November 2021.
  1. [38]
    The Appellant's written closing submissions in reply were filed on 6 December 2021.
  1. [39]
    The evidence of the witnesses and ten exhibits tendered at the Hearing, together with the written closing submissions, the Statements of Facts and Contentions, the Workers' Compensation Regulator notice of appeal and other materials filed in this matter were considered in this Decision. 
  1. [40]
    I have determined not to approach the writing of this Decision by summarising the entirety of the evidence provided and submissions made, but will instead refer to the parties' positions in my consideration of each question to be decided.

Witnesses

  1. [41]
    The witnesses for the Appellant's case were:
  • Mr Trent Shaw, the Appellant himself;
  • Mr Keith Williams, Principal Internal Auditor, Department of Education; and
  • Ms Jenifer Turner, the Appellant's treating Psychologist.
  1. [42]
    Dr Matira Taikato, the Appellant's treating Psychiatrist, was also to be called as a witness.  However, she declined to appear and I was advised that the Appellant no longer sought to call Dr Taikato as a witness.  That was not objected to by the Respondent.
  1. [43]
    A resumed Hearing date was set down for 29 November 2021.  That further date was set to enable Mr Shaw to consider whether he would call Dr Taikato as a witness, bring further medical evidence from a Psychiatrist or other medical expert witness or rely only on the medical evidence already submitted in the Hearing.
  1. [44]
    On 12 October 2021, Mr Shaw emailed the Industrial Registry to advise that he had "not been able to engage a Psychiatrist to undertake another medico-legal report that can be submitted as evidence for the pending Resumed Hearing…"[25]  In response to an email from the Industrial Registry inquiring as to whether Mr Shaw intended to rely only on the medical expert witnesses who have given evidence in the hearing to date or instead whether he would compel Dr Taikato to give evidence at the resumed Hearing,[26] Mr Shaw confirmed his decision to adopt the former course.[27]
  1. [45]
    The witnesses for the Respondent's case were:
  • Dr Liam Smith, Regional Director, North Coast Region, Department of Education;
  • Ms Janelle Reid, Assistant Regional Director, North Coast Region, Department of Education; and
  • Dr Lindsay Hantom, the Appellant's General Practitioner.

What psychiatric condition does Mr Shaw have and when was it sustained?

  1. [46]
    It is not disputed that Mr Shaw has a psychiatric condition.  However the nature of Mr Shaw's psychiatric condition was not a matter settled between the parties prior to the Hearing.
  1. [47]
    The question of when Mr Shaw's psychiatric condition was sustained is also disputed.  Mr Shaw's contention is that his psychiatric condition was sustained on 4 April 2019 and diagnosed on 5 April 2019.  The Regulator's position was that Mr Shaw's psychiatric condition emerged in 2016 (if not earlier).[28]

Dr Hantom

  1. [48]
    Mr Shaw first consulted Dr Hantom at Noosa Civic Family Practice on 3 February 2017 for stress. 
  1. [49]
    Dr Hantom considered Mr Shaw was already suffering a psychological condition as at 3 February 2017, so prepared a Mental Health Care Plan (MHCP) referral to Ms Jenifer Turner, Psychologist.[29]  Dr Hantom noted Mr Shaw's "K-10 Score:[30] 37" (severe) in her consultation notes and MHCP of that date.[31] 
  1. [50]
    Dr Hantom opined in the MHCP issued on 3 February 2017 that Mr Shaw's psychological condition was a result of combined work and personal stress, she wrote:

Main Diagnosis: Anxiety Disorder

Background of work based stress over the last four years in his position as principal of Kin Kin state school.  Has caused anxiety and some depressive sx.  Also he separated from his wife in 2013 and she moved with the kids down to Gold coast and he is having to travel long distances every week to have contact with his children.[32]

  1. [51]
    In July 2017, Dr Hantom's notes record that Mr Shaw attended in a distressed state and she recommended a period of leave from work.  Medical certificates were issued providing for Mr Shaw to take a period of extended sick leave for some months, from 12 July 2017 and returning to work on 3 October 2017.[33]
  1. [52]
    In conference with the Regulator's representatives on 7 July 2021, Dr Hantom considered Mr Shaw had an ongoing psychological condition during the period she was treating him.[34]  In other words, that means "one continuing, ongoing psychological condition",[35] as Counsel for the Regulator observed.
  1. [53]
    Throughout Mr Shaw's consultations with her, Dr Hantom observed that his psychological state would wax and wane according to the stressors that were present at that time in his personal and work life.[36] 
  1. [54]
    On 2 January 2019, Dr Hantom provided Mr Shaw with a further referral to Ms Turner "for ongoing care of his chronic work stress and resultant mood issues."[37]  The accompanying MHCP prepared on that date records the "Main Diagnosis" as "Depression, Anxiety Disorder."[38] 
  1. [55]
    In the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 18 June 2019,[39] Dr Hantom stated that Mr Shaw was first seen for the injury diagnosed as "Depression related to workplace stress and anxiety" on 5 April 2019.
  1. [56]
    On 5 April 2019, Mr Shaw consulted Dr Hantom in a distressed state.  "Dr Hantom acknowledges that during this consultation she was briefed only with Mr Shaw's version of events as to what had transpired at school; and therefore it is impossible for her to ascertain whether Mr Shaw's distressed state was in response to difficulties in the school or his personal life."[40]
  1. [57]
    In her notes of the consultation with Mr Shaw on 23 April 2019, Dr Hantom wrote:

We also discussed whether this should indeed be a workcover claim – discussed this could be rejected based on timeframe given I have been seeing him for 2 years regarding this issue.[41]

  1. [58]
    Dr Hantom referred Mr Shaw to Dr Matira Taikato, Psychiatrist, on 23 April 2019.[42] 
  1. [59]
    In Dr Hantom's referral letter of 23 April 2019, she wrote:

Trent is a school principal in Kin Kin and has been having low mood and anxiety problems related to interactions with his supervisor in the education department for over 2 years now.

…

He had been doing a lot better but again this year some incidents at school and his feeling of lack of support from the department have caused him to relapse.  This is not a workcover claim at present.[43]

  1. [60]
    In her notes of the consultation with Mr Shaw on 24 May 2019, Dr Hantom wrote:

He saw Dr Taikato 2 weeks ago and reports she has diagnosed him with major depression related to his work situation.  Commenced him on sertraline.[44]

  1. [61]
    That would place the date of Mr Shaw's consultation with Dr Taikato on or about 10 May 2019, approximately 5 weeks after the altercation at school on 4 April 2019.  I observe that the above notation contains Mr Shaw's report of his diagnosis to Dr Hantom at that time.

Ms Turner

  1. [62]
    Ms Turner's evidence was that Mr Shaw first consulted her on 27 October 2016[45] and subsequently returned at 2-3 week intervals from that time.[46]  Ms Turner stated that initially Mr Shaw sought assistance for anxiety symptoms.[47] 
  1. [63]
    At the Hearing, Ms Turner's evidence was that Mr Shaw was suffering from an adjustment disorder in 2016.  Ms Turner accepted the proposition that she continued to treat the condition diagnosed as adjustment disorder with anxiety through 2017, 2018 and 2019.[48] 
  1. [64]
    Ms Turner stated that those anxiety symptoms fluctuated within the moderate to severe range between 2015 and 2018.[49]  That appears to be borne out by the various correspondence between Ms Turner and Dr Hantom, reflecting the K-10 scores at various points in time.[50] 
  1. [65]
    Ms Turner responded to the proposition that Mr Shaw in fact had one continuing ongoing psychological condition,[51] as opposed to a new condition on 4 April 2019, as follows:

From 2017 through to the last time that she consulted with him.  I think was in 2020.  I'll just confirm that.  Yes, in 2020 is what she's saying? – Well, I would say it has fluctuated up until two – until he left work in 2019.  It fluctuated depending on – severity fluctuated depending on what was going on in the workplace.[52]

  1. [66]
    Ms Turner's evidence was that on 4 April 2019 Mr Shaw sustained a psychological condition of major depressive disorder with prominent anxiety.[53]  Though she provided the following context to those remarks:

Mr Shaw was already under a lot of pressure by the 4th.  That was the straw that broke the camel's back, really, and was the cause that – the events just preceding the 4th of April or on the 4th of April was the trigger for – was – was an aggravation of what was already going on.  He was already under a lot of pressure from…Ms Reid and the department.[54]

Dr Taikato

  1. [67]
    Correspondence from Dr Taikato to Dr Hantom dated 16 March 2020 includes a diagnosis of "Major depressive disorder with prominent anxiety" (severe), further to the most recent psychiatry review of 2 March 2020.[55]  That document further states that the initial psychiatry assessment was conducted on 2 May 2019.
  1. [68]
    A medical expert report authored by Dr Taikato was available to me.[56]  I note that report dated 28 May 2021 stated Mr Shaw's diagnosis is "Major depressive disorder with prominent anxiety", and that he had completed a DASS 21[57] assessment scale "scored in the extremely severe domain".[58] 
  1. [69]
    The report further stated that "Mr Shaw has been treated for a Major depressive disorder with prominent anxiety since May 2019."[59]  That would appear to support Mr Shaw's report of his "major depression" diagnosis to his GP, as recorded in her notes of 24 May 2019.[60]  I would also observe that Dr Taikato's diagnosis was about five weeks after Mr Shaw's claimed injury on 4 April 2019.
  1. [70]
    However little weight can be placed on that report in circumstances where Dr Taikato herself was unwilling to hold to it and give evidence at the Hearing – and Mr Shaw determined not to compel her to appear.

Consideration

  1. [71]
    I am persuaded that the medical evidence demonstrates that Mr Shaw had a psychological / psychiatric disorder from 2016. 
  1. [72]
    Clearly taking active steps to address that mental health condition, Mr Shaw commenced seeing Ms Turner in October 2016 and then first consulted Dr Hantom in February 2017. 
  1. [73]
    At the first consultation with Mr Shaw in February 2017, Dr Hantom provided the "Main diagnosis" was "Anxiety Disorder", noting he had "anxiety and some depressive sx" at a "severe" level.[61]  Ms Turner also stated that initially Mr Shaw sought assistance for anxiety symptoms and accepted the proposition that she continued to treat the condition diagnosed as adjustment disorder with anxiety through 2017, 2018 and 2019.  
  1. [74]
    Although Ms Turner concluded that 4 April 2019 "was the straw that broke the camel's back", I note Mr Shaw had already taken an extended amount of sick leave previously, under a medical certificate issued by Dr Hantom. The fact that Mr Shaw did not return to work after 4 April 2019 is not too dissimilar from the fact Mr Shaw took an extended amount of sick leave at the recommendation of his medical practitioner back in July 2017. In my view, these actions evidence that Mr Shaw had an ongoing psychological condition that would wax and wane - July 2017 and 4 April 2019 are just two examples of when this occurred. 
  1. [75]
    Dr Hantom opined that Mr Shaw had an ongoing psychological condition between 2017 and 2020[62] that would "wax and wane" depending on what was going on in his work and personal life.  The ongoing nature of his illness was further supported by the notes of Dr Hantom's consultation with Mr Shaw on 23 April 2019, in which she observed the issue of claim timeframes in circumstances where there is an existing condition:

We also discussed whether this should indeed be a workcover claim – discussed this could be rejected based on timeframe given I have been seeing him for 2 years regarding this issue.[63]

  1. [76]
    Ms Turner also observed of Mr Shaw's condition that the "severity fluctuated depending on what was going on…", adding that the events of the 4 April 2019 were really the "straw that broke the camel's back" and "an aggravation of what was already going on". 
  1. [77]
    Correspondence between Ms Turner and Dr Hantom contains Mr Shaw's K-10 scores at various points in time, recording that those anxiety symptoms fluctuated within the moderate to severe range between 2015 and 2018.  
  1. [78]
    On 2 January 2019, Dr Hantom described her diagnosis of Mr Shaw's condition as "Depression, Anxiety Disorder". Dr Hantom later adopted a similar description of Mr Shaw's condition, "Depression related to workplace stress and anxiety", when completing the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 18 June 2019. 
  1. [79]
    By that time, I also note that Dr Taikato's diagnosis of "Major depression" was before Dr Hantom.  The diagnosis of "Major depression" had been reported by Mr Shaw and recorded in Dr Hantom's notes dated 24 May 2019.  Dr Hantom also included reference to Dr Taikato's diagnosis in the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate.  Notwithstanding that was available to Dr Hantom, she determined a different description of Mr Shaw's diagnosis as "Depression related to workplace stress and anxiety", similar to the earlier "Depression, Anxiety Disorder" diagnosis.[64]
  2. [80]
    When Mr Shaw first saw Dr Hantom in early 2017, she observed his psychological condition was a result of combined work and personal stress.  When a distressed Mr Shaw consulted Dr Hantom on 5 April 2019, Dr Hantom later acknowledged that "…she was briefed only with Mr Shaw's version of events as to what had transpired at school; and therefore it is impossible for her to ascertain whether Mr Shaw's distressed state was in response to difficulties in the school or his personal life."[65]
  1. [81]
    On that basis, I note that the characterisation of Mr Shaw's condition in the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate as being "related to workplace stress" may be inaccurate by omission, given the various personal stressors that had peppered the recent months immediately preceding 5 April 2019.  The entirety of those personal circumstances were not known by Dr Hantom at the time of issuing the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate.[66]
  1. [82]
    I have earlier noted that a medical expert report dated 28 May 2021 and authored by Dr Taikato was available to me.  That report stated, "Mr Shaw has been treated for a Major depressive disorder with prominent anxiety since May 2019." 
  1. [83]
    While Ms Turner had seemingly agreed with Dr Hantom that Mr Shaw's condition was ongoing, her evidence was also that on 4 April 2019 Mr Shaw sustained a psychological condition of major depressive disorder with prominent anxiety.  As I have explained above, Ms Turner contextualised her agreement with Dr Taikato's assessment, in terms of the events of the 4 April 2019 being "an aggravation of what was already going on".
  1. [84]
    In the usual course, the evidence of a Psychiatrist may be preferred above the evidence of a General Practitioner in this type of case.  However little weight can be placed on that report in circumstances where Dr Taikato herself was unwilling to hold to it and give evidence at the Hearing – and Mr Shaw determined not to compel her to appear.
  1. [85]
    In the usual course, the apparent consensus of a Psychiatrist and Psychologist may also be persuasive.  However, as noted above, Dr Taikato did not give evidence at the Hearing.  With respect to the extent of any conflict then between the evidence of Dr Hantom or Ms Turner, I need consider which expert opinion should be preferred in this case. 
  1. [86]
    Dr Hantom impressed me as fair-minded and straightforward in the manner in which she provided her evidence to the Commission.  At the time of Hearing, Dr Hantom had been practising as a General Practitioner for about 12 years, holding medical qualifications in BSC, MBChB and FRACGP.[67]  In terms of documentary evidence, Dr Hantom's contemporaneous consultation notes and a signed file note of her conference with the Regulator on 7 July 2021 were before me as exhibits in this case.[68]  Dr Hantom confirmed that the file note was true and correct to the best of her knowledge, and that she held to the clinical opinion as recorded in the file note produced.[69]
  1. [87]
    The Regulator has submitted that Ms Turner appeared to take on the role of advocate for Mr Shaw, rather than give her evidence to the Commission as an "impartial and unbiased expert witness."[70]  Examples included Ms Turner's concession that at least part of her report dated 26 April 2019 "was misleading and to her knowledge at the time of preparing the report – inaccurate", the contradiction of her contemporaneous consultation notes in her oral evidence whereby she attempted "to downplay the significance of (Mr Shaw's) need to move to the Gold Coast" and her apparent adoption of the role of advocate for Mr Shaw.  That was put to Ms Turner by Counsel for the Regulator at the Hearing.  Citing R v Butler[71] and Fox v Percy,[72] the Respondent has submitted that it is inappropriate for an expert witness to act as an advocate rather than as an impartial expert witness and that such evidence may be rejected.[73]  I agree with that assessment of Ms Turner's evidence at the Hearing.  Therefore I am persuaded by the Respondent's submission "that the Commission would prefer, accept and apply the evidence of Dr Hantom over that of Ms Turner"[74] in such circumstances.  That is the course I will adopt here.
  1. [88]
    For the above reasons, on the balance of probabilities, I find that:
  • Mr Shaw's psychiatric illness emerged in 2016;
  • Mr Shaw's condition was "Depression, Anxiety Disorder", as diagnosed by Dr Hantom[75] - the expression of that ongoing condition fluctuated in severity, according to Mr Shaw's personal and work situation at any given time in the period between 2016 and 5 April 2019;
  • the events of 4 April 2019 did not give rise to any new psychiatric condition; and
  • the events of 4 April 2019 were not an aggravation of Mr Shaw's existing psychiatric condition.
  1. [89]
    In Workers' Compensation v Guymer, the Regulator filed an application to dismiss the Appeal.[76] In that matter, the Appellant argued the relevant injury occurred in April 2015 but he had previously made four other applications for compensation since 2011.[77] The Regulator's primary position was that the Appellant had not sustained a compensable injury but had instead suffered from an ongoing psychiatric condition that arose either from his first claim in 2011, or some combination of the first to the fourth claim.[78]
  1. [90]
    Deputy President Swan accepted evidence there had been a consistent diagnosis of one continuing psychiatric disorder from the Appellant's initial consultation in 2012.[79] Deputy President Swan concluded there was no relevant medical evidence to support the Appellant's claim he had suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing psychiatric injury or that he had incurred a fresh injury.[80] Consequently, Deputy President Swan dismissed the Appeal on the basis there was no compensable injury which had occurred pursuant to s 32 of the Act.[81]
  1. [91]
    I consider that the facts in Workers' Compensation v Guymer are somewhat analogous to Mr Shaw's matter. Based on the evidence before me I accept on the balance of probabilities that Mr Shaw has been diagnosed with a continuing psychiatric disorder first identified in 2016. I am not satisfied Mr Shaw suffered an aggravation of that pre-existing psychiatric disorder on 4 April 2019 nor that he had sustained a fresh injury on that date.
  1. [92]
    Pursuant to s 131(1) of the Act, "An application for compensation is valid and enforceable only if the application is lodged by the claimant within 6 months after the entitlement to compensation arises." Section 141 of the Act provides that entitlement to compensation for an injury arises on the day the worker is assessed by a doctor. In Scofield v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2), Deputy President O'Connor (as he then was) concluded the following:

I am satisfied that the consultation on 3 April 2014 Dr Zeidan formed a conclusion or expressed an opinion that the injury arose out of the employment. The clinical notes relevantly record "stress at work" based upon what he had been told by the appellant concerning the reporting of another nurse for elder abuse. The evidence before the Commission, which I accept, was that based on the history given to him, Dr Zeidan made an evaluation that the appellant was suffering from stress at work.

  1. [93]
    In the MHCP issued on 3 February 2017, Dr Hantom first opined that Mr Shaw's psychological condition was caused by a combination of work and personal stress. Clearly, an application made in 2019 is well out of time for an injury assessed by Dr Hantom in February 2017.
  1. [94]
    Based on the reasoning in Workers' Compensation Regulator v Guymer and Scofield v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2),[82] my conclusions above would be sufficient to dismiss the Appeal altogether.
  1. [95]
    However, in the event I am wrong on that point, and either Mr Shaw's existing psychiatric condition was aggravated or a new psychiatric condition developed on 4 April 2019, I will proceed to consider further criteria under s 32 of the Act.

Did Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arise out of, or in the course of, his employment?

  1. [96]
    To meet this test, it is sufficient for Mr Shaw to prove that the psychiatric disorder either arose "out of" or "in the course of" his employment.  It need not be both.

Arising in the course of his employment

  1. [97]
    It has been said that "It has generally been accepted that these words do not require a causative element but a temporal one…"[83]
  1. [98]
    Commissioner Neate explained in Morrison v Workers' Compensation Regulator that (emphasis added):

An injury "in the course of employment" means an injury sustained while the worker is engaged in the work that he or she is employed to do or in something which is concomitant of, or reasonably incidental to, the person's employment to do that work.[84]

Consideration - Arising in the course of his employment

  1. [99]
    Mr Shaw was employed as Principal of KKSS in January 2010.  He did not return to that position after 4 April 2019, instead embarking on a period of extended sick leave until his resignation on 18 February 2021. 
  1. [100]
    It is not disputed that in the period he was engaged in the performance of his allocated duties at KKSS, Mr Shaw consulted his Psychologist and General Practitioner about stress, anxiety and depressive symptoms.  His condition ultimately deteriorated such that a referral to a Psychiatrist occurred in May 2019. 
  1. [101]
    During Mr Shaw's time as Principal, numerous challenges arose. 
  1. [102]
    Over a period of several years, the school weathered an Internal Audit and ensuing departmental support interventions, two Ethical Standards Unit investigations and a review of the school's IPS status.  Mr Shaw had interpersonal relationship difficulties with three school colleagues. 
  1. [103]
    In her capacity as Assistant Regional Director, Ms Reid's responsibilities included providing direction and guidance to Mr Shaw.  Ms Reid had commented on Mr Shaw's lack of engagement with her[85] on those matters and expressed concern as to his wellbeing.[86] 
  1. [104]
    Ms Turner's notes indicate that Mr Shaw resented what he perceived to be Ms Reid's micromanagement of him.[87]  That included Mr Shaw's continued practice of departing from KKSS late morning on Fridays, in order to visit his two school-age children on the Gold Coast as part of a custody arrangement with his former wife.  Mr Shaw had been directed this was not appropriate.  He continued nonetheless.
  1. [105]
    Bearing in mind that what is required here is a temporal element, not a causative one, it is the case that Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arose "during" or "at a time when" he was employed at the school.  It is clear to me that Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arose whilst he was engaged in the work that he was employed to do. 
  1. [106]
    For those reasons, if I were to be wrong in finding that Mr Shaw's existing psychiatric condition was not aggravated - nor a new psychiatric condition developed - on 4 April 2019, I would proceed with further consideration of s 32 and find that the particular element "arising in the course of his employment" to be satisfied. 

Arising out of his employment

  1. [107]
    In Linke v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator), Commissioner Neate said (emphasis added):

…an injury which arises out of employment occurs where there is a causal connection between the employment and the injury. Although the words "arising out of" do not require the direct or proximate relationship which would be necessary if the phrase used was "caused by," there must be some causal or consequential relationship between the worker's employment and the injury.[88]

  1. [108]
    As observed by Jordan CJ and Roper J in Nunan v Cockatoo Docks and Engineering Co Ltd, "Was it part of the injured persons employment to hazard, to suffer, or to do that which caused his injury?  It must arise out of the work which the worker is employed to do – out of his service."[89]

Consideration - Arising out of his employment

  1. [109]
    My consideration now turns to whether Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arose out of the work which he was employed to do. 
  1. [110]
    Was it part of Mr Shaw's employment "to hazard, to suffer, or to do" the duties that had some causal or consequential relationship to the onset of his psychiatric disorder? 
  1. [111]
    It is accepted that it was part of Mr Shaw's duties to assist the Internal Audit process and implement resultant action plan items designed to remediate identified deficiencies.  It was within the remit of the Principal's role to engage with any IPS Review process.  It was also the case that staff management and engagement with departmental colleagues outside the school including Ms Reid was part and parcel of Mr Shaw's duties.  Where issues arose, ESU investigations were conducted and Mr Shaw was required to respond. 
  1. [112]
    Ms Turner gave evidence about the impact of those incidents on Mr Shaw, in support of his claim that work had caused his psychiatric illness.[90]
  1. [113]
    Dr Hantom's evidence was that Mr Shaw's psychological state would wax and wane according to the stressors that were present at that time in his personal and work life.[91]  In providing a further referral for Mr Shaw's continuing consultations with Ms Turner, Dr Hantom noted the MHCP was "for ongoing care of his chronic work stress and resultant mood issues."[92]  In the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 18 June 2019,[93] Dr Hantom stated that Mr Shaw was first seen for the injury diagnosed as "Depression related to workplace stress and anxiety" on 5 April 2019.
  1. [114]
    Mr Shaw filed an Amended List of Stressors on 1 June 2021.  Those five stressors centred on the impact of work on his mental health.
  1. [115]
    The evidence of Mr Shaw and Ms Turner was that the cumulative effect of those work-related incidents impacted on him over time.  Ms Turner described the events of the 4 April 2019 as really the "straw that broke the camel's back" and "an aggravation of what was already going on". 
  1. [116]
    While Mr Shaw consulted Dr Hantom in a distressed state on 5 April 2019, it was impossible for her to ascertain whether Mr Shaw's distressed state was in response to difficulties in the school or his personal life.[94] 
  1. [117]
    Although Dr Hantom had noted in the Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate dated 18 June 2019,[95] that Mr Shaw's diagnosis was "Depression related to workplace stress and anxiety" on 5 April 2019.
  1. [118]
    While I have not been persuaded to the required standard that Mr Shaw's work was the major significant contributing factor to his psychiatric disorder, it is nonetheless the case that consecutive work-related events had sufficient impact and connection to discharge this particular limb of the test.
  1. [119]
    For those reasons, if I were to be wrong in finding that Mr Shaw's existing psychiatric condition was not aggravated - nor a new psychiatric condition developed - on 4 April 2019, I would proceed with further consideration of s 32 and find that the particular element "arising out of his employment" to be satisfied. 
  1. [120]
    With that clear caveat, if my findings at paragraph [88] above were to be wrong I would find that Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder both arose "out of" and "in the course of" his employment at the school.

Was Mr Shaw's employment the "major significant contributing factor" to his psychiatric condition?

  1. [121]
    Having considered the causal and temporal connection between Mr Shaw's employment and the onset of his psychiatric disorder, I now turn to whether work was the "major significant contributing factor", in accordance with the elements of a compensable "injury" so defined under s 32 of the Act.
  1. [122]
    Mr Shaw filed an Amended List of Stressors on 1 June 2021.  He nominated five stressors "that occurred between 19 December 2018 and 4 April 2019 that led to the sustaining of his psychiatric injury on 4 April 2019 which was diagnosed by Dr Matira Taikato on 2 May 2019 as major depression."[96] 

An extract of the table provided by Mr Shaw is as follows:[97]

1

4/3/19

Ms Reid reluctant to support career progression amplified the Appellant's 'fear of failure' mindset

2

19/12/18 to 4/3/19

Dr Smith not organising a meeting he requested with Ms Reid and the Appellant amplified the Appellant's mindset that 'he is the problem'

3

12/18 to 4/4/19

The focusing on issue-free leadership compounded the Appellant's stress and anxiety

4

12/18 to 4/4/19

The pending school review not being scheduled in the early part of the year increased the Appellant's anxiety

5

13/3/19 to 4/4/19

Applying for a promotional position impacted significantly on the Appellant's psychological well-being

  1. [123]
    The evidence before me chronicles the various work and personal events that may have caused stress for Mr Shaw in the relevant period.  It is clear that the range of such issues live in the lead up to April 2019 went well beyond the five matters identified in the List of Stressors.
  1. [124]
    While Mr Shaw and Ms Turner emphatically posited 'work' to be the cause of his psychiatric condition, Dr Hantom opined that Mr Shaw's illness was caused by a combination of both work stressors and personal relationship stressors.  Ultimately, Dr Hantom was unable to discern which of those components to be the more significant.[98]
  1. [125]
    Several factors could be said to have contributed to the onset of Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder.  Those were:

Personal - Issues between Mr Shaw and his former wife

  1. [126]
    Mr Shaw and his former wife separated in February 2013 and she immediately moved to the Gold Coast with their children.
  1. [127]
    At the Hearing, Mr Shaw's evidence was that he was dealing with ongoing issues with his former wife relating to money, child access issues and pressure on him to be more involved with their children.[99]
  1. [128]
    Mr Shaw relayed that his relationship with his former wife has always been difficult.[100]
  1. [129]
    Mr Shaw discussed those matters with Ms Turner on 4 April 2019. 
  1. [130]
    That particular matter was clearly at the fore of Mr Shaw's mind on the date of the claimed injury, such that he recounted it to Ms Turner at the consultation.

Personal - Mr Shaw seeks Ms Reid's support for transfer to the Gold Coast

  1. [131]
    Mr Shaw desired transfer to the Gold Coast region to be closer to his children and former wife.
  1. [132]
    Mr Shaw emailed Ms Reid requesting her to be a supportive referee in September 2018.  She responded with the suggestion that be discussed in person next time they were to meet the following month.
  1. [133]
    At the meeting in October 2018, Ms Reid's records indicated that the 'garden program' was discussed with Mr Shaw.
  1. [134]
    In December 2018, Ms Reid's 'End of year supervisor comments 2018' stated that she could not support a promotion yet, specifically that "principal leadership above current banding is not yet supported."
  1. [135]
    The following day, Mr Shaw contacted Dr Smith to organise a meeting together with Ms Reid.  Dr Smith confirmed that would occur in early Term 1, 2019.
  1. [136]
    In early March 2019, Ms Reid conducted a regular visit to the school.  The following day, Mr Shaw contacted Dr Smith to advise him that the meeting between the three of them was no longer required.
  1. [137]
    About a week later, Ms Reid confirmed she was supportive of Mr Shaw "placing his name on the aspirant list and providing an application to Ashmore."[101]  However, he was ultimately advised that he was unsuccessful for that position.
  1. [138]
    By 2019, Mr Shaw's need to transfer to the Gold Coast had reached fever pitch. 
  1. [139]
    Ms Turner's consultation notes reveal the increasing pressure Mr Shaw was under to successfully execute the relocation. On 31 January 2019, it was noted that Mr Shaw spending more time with his children had helped the relationship with his son.[102] On 14 February 2019, it was recorded that Mr Shaw had decided it would be his last year at KKSS, as it is important for him to get to the Gold Coast.[103] 
  1. [140]
    On 4 April 2019, the first half of the consultation with Ms Turner was recorded as being a discussion about Mr Shaw's need to get to the Gold Coast to be with his children.  Such notations included that "Can't stay just to get a promotion.  Can't do it to (his children) either – (Son) thought he'd be packing up to live with them.  It impacts on trust."  Additional notes from that consultation provide further emphasis to that pressing necessity in that Mr Shaw had "Applied for D.P. job – didn't get it – not sure wants to be DP but needs to get to Gold Coast."  That part of the recount to Ms Turner included that Mr Shaw had "…extreme urgency to move to be with children now."  In that consultation, two school matters were then canvassed, before Mr Shaw finally concluded the session with an account of the altercation at the school with Ms X that day. 
  1. [141]
    The relocation to be with his children was clearly at the fore of Mr Shaw's mind on the date of the claimed injury, such that he recounted it both first and extensively to Ms Turner at the consultation with her on 4 April 2019.

Personal - Issues between Mr Shaw and Ms X

  1. [142]
    Between 2013 and December 2017, Mr Shaw had a romantic relationship with Ms X, who was also employed at the school.
  1. [143]
    That relationship soured.
  1. [144]
    In January 2018, Mr Shaw consulted Dr Hantom regarding stress of the ESU investigation, IPS review and split with partner Ms X saying the relationship had become a "bit toxic".[104]
  1. [145]
    A year later, ongoing interpersonal difficulties between Mr Shaw and Ms X were continuing.[105]
  1. [146]
    A heated altercation between Mr Shaw and Ms X took place at the school on 4 April 2019, culminating in Ms X stating that she would take a period of stress leave due to his treatment of her.[106]
  1. [147]
    Mr Shaw consulted Ms Turner on 4 April 2019.  Towards the end of that session, Mr Shaw expressed that "(Ms X) threatened to go on sick leave and he just can't take another investigation – especially one that involves his personal life.  He's had enough."  That particular matter was clearly at the fore of Mr Shaw's mind on the date of the claimed injury, such that he recounted it to Ms Turner at the consultation.
  1. [148]
    The following day, Mr Shaw consulted Dr Hantom, who noted "problems with ex-partner who he works with."[107]
  1. [149]
    Ms X's perspective of the impact of the disintegration of the relationship was recounted in her email to Ms Louise Parry, Acting Principal of KKSS, dated 13 June 2019.[108]

Work - Priority Support Review / Internal Audit / Follow up Audit Report

  1. [150]
    In October 2015, the School Improvement Unit initiated the foreshadowed 'Priority Support Review' and a 12-month action plan commenced. 
  1. [151]
    The Internal Audit concluded the result to be "unsatisfactory", so a further 12-month monitoring process was initiated in July 2017.
  1. [152]
    In March 2018, a Follow Up Audit Report found four agreed management actions to be still in progress.  Six months later, all agreed management actions had been implemented and the school's overall rating adjusted to sound.

Work - First Ethical Standards Unit investigation

  1. [153]
    In October 2016, Mr Shaw was subject of an Ethical Standards Unit (ESU) investigation regarding allegations of inappropriate conduct towards a colleague (Ms Z) and being absent from duty without approved leave and without reasonable excuse. 
  1. [154]
    Mr Shaw was subsequently issued with a 'show cause' notice in May 2017, with respect to the substantiated matter of leaving work early.  That process culminated in a reprimand being issued to Mr Shaw later that year.
  1. [155]
    In October 2017, Mr Shaw was informed that the allegation of inappropriate conduct towards a colleague had also been substantiated. At that time, it was also noted that Mr Shaw continued to be absent from the school every second Friday after he had been directed to discontinue this practice.

Work - Second Ethical Standards Unit investigation

  1. [156]
    In August 2017, Mr Shaw was subject of a second Ethical Standards Unit (ESU) investigation regarding the alleged misappropriation of department funds to convert the school's playing fields into a garlic farm.
  1. [157]
    The second ESU investigation concluded that allegation not to be substantiated.

Work - Review of school's IPS status

  1. [158]
    The outcome of the Internal Audit caused the Director General to initiate an evaluation of the school's IPS status in November 2017.  The IPS review was undertaken, with the overall school rating revised to "sound".  Mr Shaw was advised the school would retain their IPS status in December 2018.

Work - Issues between Mr Shaw and Ms Janelle Reid

  1. [159]
    In January 2015, Ms Janelle Reid was appointed as Assistant Regional Director for a cluster of schools, including KKSS.  In that capacity, Ms Reid undertook regular visits to the schools she had oversight responsibility for.
  1. [160]
    From the beginning of 2017, Ms Reid recorded Mr Shaw's reticence to engage with her.  That took various forms in the following period, including:
  • Mr Shaw's lack of engagement in meetings with Ms Reid was noted;
  • Mr Shaw declined to keep a scheduled meeting with Ms Reid, saying he had to meet his coach offsite;
  • Mr Shaw declined to respond to Ms Reid's request for information regarding the particular school outside the cluster that he was visiting until weeks later; 
  • Ms Reid had need to make multiple requests that Mr Shaw provide updates regarding the Internal Audit Action Plan items; 
  • Ms Reid expressed continued concerns about the diversion of school funds to the kitchen garden project in lieu of literacy and numeracy programmes; and
  • Ms Reid emphasised the requirement that Mr Shaw notify her of his absences from school during the working day.
  1. [161]
    It appeared to me that Mr Shaw viewed these interactions as intrusions into his management practices at the school. 
  1. [162]
    Ms Reid expressed concern for Mr Shaw's wellbeing.  An apposite observation, in light of the medical certificates issued with respect to Mr Shaw's various stress-related absences (including one extended period of sick leave absence due to stress from 26 June 2017 until 2 October 2017 inclusive).

Work - Issues between Mr Shaw and Ms Y, Business Services Manager (BSM)

  1. [163]
    Mr Shaw and Ms Y met with Mr Williams about Internal Audit matters in June 2017.
  1. [164]
    Shortly after the Internal Audit was undertaken by Mr Williams later that month, Mr Shaw commenced an extended period of sick leave related to stress, returning to work in October.  During the period of his absence, the Internal Audit concluded an unsatisfactory result and the 12-month monitoring process was initiated.
  1. [165]
    For the period of Mr Shaw's absence, an Acting Principal was appointed. 
  1. [166]
    Difficulties between Mr Shaw and Ms Y were ongoing.  Mr Shaw continued to seek support from the Department's Human Resources section regarding his management of Ms Y as at 14 February 2018.

Consideration

  1. [167]
    My task is to determine whether or not Mr Shaw's employment was the "major significant contributing factor" causative of his psychiatric disorder. 
  1. [168]
    Mr Shaw had initially considered the 2019 school year was off to a positive start, with respect to his interactions with Ms Reid.  Mr Shaw had commented to Ms Turner that "(Ms Reid) visited and 'a complete turn around'.  Feels good about this" and "Told (Dr Smith) that a meeting between the 3 of them not needed now." [109]  That attitude was also borne out in Mr Shaw's email to Dr Smith on 5 March 2019.[110]
  1. [169]
    In an email to Dr Smith and Ms Reid dated 11 April 2019, Mr Shaw wrote:

…Til the last few days of term, I was really happy with the start of the year.  Likewise, extremely motivated for how the rest of the year could unfold.  Having a positive start with you Janelle also influenced my optimism.  However, a situation eventuated that impacted on my 'safe feeling' at work…[111]

  1. [170]
    The qualifier Mr Shaw brought to that more positive view of his work situation was the situation that impacted on his safe feeling at work.  I understand that 'situation' is that which gave rise to the altercation between Mr Shaw and Ms X on 4 April 2019 - and Mr Shaw's perception that there may be another investigation and what would flow from that, given his comments to Ms Turner at that time.  That was clearly at the forefront of his mind. 
  1. [171]
    By 14 April 2019, Mr Shaw expressed that he had not sought the Department's assistance in managing the difficult interactions with Ms X earlier "…because, I deeply believe having this situation known to region will end my career."[112]  And with that, it may reasonably be inferred, an end to Mr Shaw's hopes for a transfer to the Gold Coast to be with his children in a leadership position that would afford him a commensurate income level. 
  1. [172]
    Notwithstanding the reset of the professional relationship that had clearly occurred from the start of 2019, both he and Dr Hantom (on his behalf) requested that Mr Shaw be reallocated a different supervisor.  Curiously that request occurred almost a week after the altercation at work between Mr Shaw and Ms X on 4 April 2019 - a matter not involving Ms Reid whatsoever.  Mr Shaw's email to Dr Smith provides some insight into why that request was made.  That is essentially that Mr Shaw assumed that his relationship with Ms Reid would revert back to what he perceived to be an "unsupportive" one.  Mr Shaw wrote:

I have valued Janelle and I encountering a positive start to the year.  However, it is not the first time we have encountered a positive start after 'drawing a line in the sand…"  On those occasions, when something happens it then returns to being an unsupportive relationship of my 'self' and my leadership.[113]

  1. [173]
    As Counsel for the Regulator fairly put to Mr Shaw, by April 2019 he had a very complicated life - both in terms of personal issues and work issues.[114] 

Mr O'Neill: Mr Shaw, can I just start off with one proposition for you and that is that by the time we get to April of 2019, in terms of your life, you've got a very complicated life both in terms of personal issues and also work issues. Is that a fair proposition?---

Mr Shaw: No.

Mr O'Neill: Sorry?

Mr Shaw: No.

Mr O'Neill: No, you say?

Mr Shaw: Yeah. No.

Mr O'Neill: Okay. All right. Let's address, then, some of the personal stressors that you've had over the course of time leading up to 2019. You had marriage break-up – separation in 2013; that's correct?

Mr Shaw: Yes.

…

Mr O'Neill: When did your wife move to the Gold Coast? What year?

…

Mr Shaw: Two thousand and thirteen.

…

Mr O'Neill: And when did she move to the Coast?

Mr Shaw: That – that day.

…

Mr O'Neill: Can I suggest to you that from that time onwards you then encountered ongoing difficulties in exercising your contact with the children?

…

Mr O'Neill: Mrs Shaw, your former wife, can I put to you, required you to pick up your son from school on a Friday afternoon; correct?

Mr Shaw: That was a mediation agreement.

…

Mr O'Neill: All right. So he was going to school at the Gold Coast at that stage?

Mr Shaw: Yes.

Mr O'Neill: He would finish school at 2.30?

Mr Shaw: No. I said no.

Mr O'Neill: All right. So you say he finished school at 3 o'clock?

Mr Shaw: Well, that's when the school finishes, that - - -

Mr O'Neill: All right. And you would have to travel from Kin Kin, which is just outside of Gympie?

Mr Shaw: Correct.

Mr O'Neill: To pick him up by 3 o'clock?

Mr Shaw: Correct

…

Mr O'Neill: Well, in 2015 and 2016 were you exercising contact with your children every second Friday?

Mr Shaw: Yes.

Mr O'Neill: And on the days that you were exercising contact, did that require you to then leave Kin Kin State School by mid-morning to enable you to arrive on the Gold Coast to pick up your son?

Mr Shaw: I had to leave Kin Kin, yes.[115]

  1. [174]
    Although Mr Shaw did not consider the ongoing issues with his former wife relating to money, child access issues and a requirement for him to be more involved with their children was an ongoing stressor that was present on 4 April 2019 when he decompensated, that cannot be the case in light of his contemporaneous comments to Ms Turner.
  1. [175]
    Ms Turner's notes instead record that Mr Shaw's former wife wanted more money and further that she was "up him for not being there, example, she put him as a contact for (their son's) soccer."[116]  Counsel for the Regulator fairly put all that to Mr Shaw as follows:

Mr O'Neill: So that was something that you considered to be significant enough that you reported it to your treating psychologist on the day that you decompensated from what you say are these work issues; correct?

Mr Shaw: I did talk about that on that day, and that was part of the discussion about what would happen if I quit.[117]

  1. [176]
    In his consultation with Ms Turner on 4 April 2019, Mr Shaw appeared to agree with that proposition, as it was reflected in her notes that he "Is an introvert and his life is very busy and exposed".[118]
  1. [177]
    On the evidence before me, I conclude Mr Shaw sought Ms Reid's support for transfer to the Gold Coast because he needed to be closer to his children.  The need for a transfer did not appear to stem from ambition to progress in his career or from any work-related aspiration.  Rather, the sole focus for Mr Shaw was his personal family circumstances - finding alternative work on the Gold Coast was an incidental, secondary requirement to that move, in order to continue to provide financially for his children.
  1. [178]
    Although Mr Shaw's relationship with Ms X may have commenced by virtue of them working together, it was ultimately a personal relationship.  The stress appears to have stemmed from the fact a working relationship turned into a personal relationship that ultimately imploded.  Certainly, the residual ill-will infected the pair's interactions in the workplace.  However, the catalyst for that was fundamentally the disintegration of their romantic relationship.
  1. [179]
    Although the First Ethical Standards Unit investigation pertained to work, a significant factor was that Mr Shaw was absent from duty without approved leave and the reason for that absence was his personal circumstances.  The fact Mr Shaw was continuously absent from duty in order to travel to the Gold Coast to be with his children illustrates that his focus was largely on his personal circumstances. His need to be with his children outweighed the need for him to be in attendance at his workplace.  It was clearly less stressful for him to take leave without approval, than it was to not be there for his children.
  1. [180]
    The necessity to get to the Gold Coast was apparent from Ms Turner's notes and from Mr Shaw's avid campaign to achieve Ms Reid's support for such a move.  On the evidence before me, I conclude that getting to the Gold Coast to be with his children was Mr Shaw's main focus.  The subsequent investigations and issues at work created further hurdles to reaching that goal.  Although those factors frustrated Mr Shaw's efforts and caused him stress, I conclude that it was ultimately his personal life that was the major significant contributing factor to his psychiatric condition.
  1. [181]
    In light of those considerations of the events leading up to the date of claimed injury on 4 April 2019, I find it more probable than not that it was personal factors, rather than work related ones, that caused the expression of Mr Shaw's psychiatric illness to increase in severity at that point in time .
  1. [182]
    Even if I were to be wrong on the first issue with respect to the date Mr Shaw developed the psychiatric disorder and whether it were a 'new' or 'aggravated' injury, I would nonetheless find that Mr Shaw's employment was not the major significant contributing factor to his psychiatric disorder on the balance of probabilities.
  1. [183]
    Having reached that conclusion, Mr Shaw's appeal would also be dismissed at that alternative juncture. 
  1. [184]
    Therefore, there is no further requirement to consider the following matters in this Decision:
  • whether Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with his employment; and
  • whether Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arose out of, or in the course of, his expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against him.
  1. [185]
    In light of my conclusions above, an order will be made in favour of the Respondent to dismiss Mr Shaw's Appeal and confirm the Regulator's decision dated 20 April 2020.

Costs

  1. [186]
    I will now consider the issue of costs.
  1. [187]
    In Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No 2),[119] Justice Davis considered the issue of costs in a Workers' Compensation Appeal and relevantly stated the following (citations removed):

[16] The power to award costs under s 558 of the WCR Act is not limited like the power to award costs given by s 545 of the IR Act.   It therefore follows that costs ought ordinarily follow the event.   While costs would normally follow the event of the appeals to the QIRC, there is a discretion to make some other costs order.  In Davidson v Blackwood, the point is made that in the absence of any reasons to make any other costs order, costs follow the event.  That does not remove the discretion to make some other order and does not extinguish the necessity to give reasons why any costs order was made…

…

  1. [24]
    Section 558 provides as follows:

"558 Powers of appeal body

  1. (1)
    In deciding an appeal, the appeal body may—
  1. (a)
    confirm the decision; or
  1. (b)
    vary the decision; or
  1. (c)
    set aside the decision and substitute another decision; or
  1. (d)
    set aside the decision and return the matter to the respondent with the directions the appeal body considers appropriate.
  1. (2)
    If the appeal body acts under subsection (1)(b) or (c), the decision is taken for this Act, other than this part, to be the decision of the insurer.
  1. (3)
    Costs of the hearing are in the appeal body's discretion, except to the extent provided under a regulation." (emphasis added)
  1. [25]
    By s 558(3), what is "in the appeal body's discretion" (here the QIRC ) are the "costs of the hearing".  The "costs of the hearing" may be quite a different thing to the "costs of the appeal".
  2. [26]
    The power to award costs is not a common law power.  It is one granted by statute.  Consequently, if the QIRC does not have a power vested by statute to award costs of the appeal beyond the costs of the hearing, then it cannot do so.

…

  1. [28]
    However, the QIRC's only power to award costs in this case probably comes from the WCR Act, not restricted by s 545 of the IR Act.  In determining the proper construction of s 558(3), and in particular the meaning of the term "costs of the hearing", regard must be had to the context and purpose of the section having regard to the statute as a whole.
  2. [29]
    In my view, the legislature has clearly deliberately limited the costs which can be recovered on an appeal to the QIRC.  It has drawn a clear distinction between different parts of the appeal process.  While the legislation envisages that the appeal process may involve a conference, no power to award costs associated with a conference is given.  The costs are limited to the "costs of the hearing".
  3. [30]
    The law of costs recognises "costs of action" and "costs of trial".  In my view, they equate to "costs of appeal" and "costs of hearing" respectively.  The distinction is explained by Professor Dal Pont in his work Law of Costs in these terms:

"1.19   An order for 'costs of the action' includes not only costs of the trial but also those of interlocutory proceedings and their preparation (such as costs relating to interrogatories, notices to produce and admit and preparation of counsel's brief). These represent the costs to which the successful party in the action is entitled on taxation or assessment, in the absence of an order to the contrary. The 'costs of the trial' cover only the costs incurred in the conduct of the trial itself, not any interlocutory matters preceding the trial. In any case, as an action ends with judgment, each of these orders excludes costs incurred after final judgment. Costs of executing the judgment are therefore not costs of the action (or of the trial) but are payable of the execution."

  1. [31]
    I accept that distinction.  I consider that the term "costs of the hearing" in s 558(3) is equivalent to "costs of trial" recognised by the law of costs and explained by Professor Dal Pont.
  2. [32]
    Consequently, when the QIRC is exercising a discretion under s 558(3) of the WCR Act, the order which should be made is not "costs of the appeal" but "costs of the hearing" and costs assessors should assess the "costs of the hearing" as they would "costs of trial" as explained by Professor Dal Pont.
  1. [188]
    Section 132(1) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Regulation 2014 (Qld) provides that "A decision to award costs of a proceeding heard by an industrial magistrate or the industrial commission is at the discretion of the magistrate or commission."
  1. [189]
    I accept that costs in Workers' Compensation Appeals ordinarily follow the event.  Had Mr Shaw not determined to initiate this proceeding, the Regulator would not have incurred the expense which it did during the hearing of this matter.  An award of costs in favour of the Respondent is reasonable and appropriate, not to punish Mr Shaw for initiating the proceeding but rather out of fairness to the Respondent in ensuring appropriate indemnification.  For those reasons, a costs order will be made in favour of the Regulator.
  1. [190]
    For the reasoning outlined in Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No 2),[120] Mr Shaw will only be required to pay the "costs of the hearing" rather than the "costs of the appeal".

Conclusion

  1. [191]
    Mr Trent Shaw served as Principal during a difficult period for the small school.
  1. [192]
    In only four years, the newly minted IPS weathered an extended period of departmental support interventions and successive action plans to remediate issues identified, two Ethical Standards Unit investigations and a review of the school's IPS status.
  1. [193]
    In her capacity as Assistant Regional Director, Ms Reid tried to help Mr Shaw navigate those issues.  Often, her assistance was rebuffed.
  1. [194]
    Adding to the school's woes were the dysfunctional interpersonal relationships between Mr Shaw and some colleagues. 
  1. [195]
    By 2019, Mr Shaw was under increasing pressure to relocate to the Gold Coast.  Mr Shaw was regularly travelling long distances to have access to his school-age children, under the custody arrangements agreed with his former wife.  Despite the distance, Mr Shaw faced increasing expectations to be more involved with his children.  There were also money worries.
  1. [196]
    Initially Mr Shaw had aimed for promotion to a higher-band principalship in the Gold Coast region.  Ms Reid had resisted that entreaty, based on the level of departmental support that was required to remediate the variety of issues plaguing the school. As an alternative, Ms Reid had suggested that Mr Shaw seek teaching roles on the Gold Coast, due to the limited number of vacant principal positions at his current classification. 
  1. [197]
    By March 2019, Ms Reid had supported Mr Shaw's application for a DP position in a Gold Coast school.  However, his candidature was unsuccessful.
  1. [198]
    Then on 4 April 2019, a heated exchange took place at the school between Mr Shaw and Ms X.  That culminated in Ms X declaring she would go on stress leave, naming Mr Shaw as the cause.
  1. [199]
    Mr Shaw told his treating Psychologist that he couldn't take another investigation, especially one involving his personal life. The following day, Mr Shaw embarked on an extended period of sick leave.  He did not return as Principal of KKSS, finally resigning from that position on 18 February 2021.
  1. [200]
    Mr Shaw submitted a WorkCover claim. That was declined.
  1. [201]
    Mr Shaw then appealed to the Regulator, who upheld WorkCover's decision. 
  1. [202]
    Mr Shaw's appeal of the Regulator's determination is the subject of this Decision.
  1. [203]
    The Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate stated Mr Shaw suffered "Depression related to workplace stress and anxiety", for which he was first seen on 5 April 2019.  However, that certificate also noted Mr Shaw's stress was "long standing". In fact, Mr Shaw had regularly accessed professional mental health support from late 2016 onwards.  His General Practitioner considered that Mr Shaw was already suffering from a psychological condition at the time of his first consultation in February 2017 - and that was ongoing for the entire period she treated him, up to 2020.
  1. [204]
    On the balance of probabilities and the evidence before me, I find that:
  • Mr Shaw's psychiatric condition was "Depression, Anxiety Disorder"; and  
  • That psychiatric condition emerged in 2016. 
  1. [205]
    On those grounds, Mr Shaw's appeal is dismissed at this juncture. However, in the event I am wrong - and either Mr Shaw's existing psychiatric condition was aggravated or a new psychiatric condition developed on 4 April 2019 - I have proceeded to consider further criteria under s 32 of the Act:
  • Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder did arise out of, or in the course of, his employment; and
  • Mr Shaw's employment was not the major significant contributing factor to his psychiatric condition.
  1. [206]
    Having found Mr Shaw's employment was not the major significant contributing factor to his psychiatric condition, his appeal would also be dismissed at that alternative juncture.
  1. [207]
    Having found that Mr Shaw's appeal would also fail at this later stage, I have not proceeded to consider whether his psychiatric disorder arose out of, or in the course of, reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with his employment.
  1. [208]
    For the reasons above, neither was there a need for me to consider whether Mr Shaw's psychiatric disorder arose out of, or in the course of, his expectation or perception of reasonable management action being taken against him.
  1. [209]
    I order accordingly.

Orders

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is confirmed.

3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent's costs of the Hearing, to be agreed or, failing agreement, to be subject to a further application to the Commission.

Footnotes

[1] Exhibit 1, 181.

[2] Priority Support Review, Internal Audit and Follow up Audit Report.

[3] The name of Ms Z is not relevant and so has been omitted from this Decision.

[4] The name of Ms Y is not relevant and so has been omitted from this Decision.

[5] The name of Ms X is not relevant and so has been omitted from this Decision.

[6] Exhibit 1, 674.

[7] Ibid 685.

[8] 5 April 2019.

[9] Submissions filed in Form 4 Application in existing proceedings, 22 March 2021, 2 [5]f.

[10] Decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator, 20 April 2020, 1; Appellant's Closing Submissions, 9 November 2021, 1 [3].

[11] Exhibit 3, 63.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid 64.

[16] Appellant's Closing Submissions, 9 November 2021, 1 [4]; Decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator, 20 April 2020.

[17] Decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator, 20 April 2020, 2.

[18] Appellant's Closing Submissions, 9 November 2021, 1 [5]; Decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator, 20 April 2020.

[19] Appellant's Closing Submissions, 9 November 2021, 1 [6]; Decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator, 20 April 2020.

[20] Decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator, 20 April 2020, 16.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Kavanagh v Commonwealth (1960) 103 CLR 547, 558-559. 

[23] Church v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2015] ICQ 031, [27]; State of Queensland (Queensland Health) v Q-Comp and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447.

[24] [2019] QIRC 203, [101], citing Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262, [136]. 

[25] Email from Mr Shaw to the Industrial Registry, 12 October 2021.

[26] Email from the Industrial Registry to Mr Shaw, 12 October 2021.

[27] Email from Mr Shaw to the Industrial Registry, 18 October 2021.

[28] Respondent's Closing Submissions, 30 November 2021, 2 [9].

[29] Exhibit 10, 1 [2].

[30] Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; Ms Turner's evidence confirmed this is a test to screen for anxiety and depression. Ms Turner stated that a score of 37 "Indicates a severe disorder"; T 2 - 72, lines 1 - 28.

[31] Exhibit 3, 2, 33.

[32] Ibid 33.

[33] Ibid 39 - 40.

[34] The period Dr Hantom treated Mr Shaw was from 2017 until 2020.

[35] T 2 - 61, lines 13 - 15.

[36] Exhibit 10, 1 [8] - [9].

[37] Exhibit 2, 26.

[38] Exhibit 3, 52.

[39] Ibid 63.

[40] Exhibit 10, 2 [11].

[41] Ibid 2.

[42] Exhibit 3, 7, 59.

[43] Ibid 59.

[44] Ibid 7.

[45] Exhibit 2, 11; T 2 - 51, line 26.

[46] Exhibit 2, 11; T 2 - 51, line 41.

[47] Exhibit 2, 11; T 2 - 51, line 30.

[48] T 2 - 58, lines 20 - 28.

[49] T 2 - 52, lines 1 - 2.

[50] Exhibit 3, 109, 112, 117, 142, 143, 171.

[51] As opined by Dr Hantom.

[52] T 2 - 61, lines 16 - 19.

[53] T 2 - 53, lines 16 - 23.

[54] T 2 - 53, lines 4 - 9.

[55] Exhibit 3, 26 - 27.

[56] Ibid 182 - 186.

[57] Depression Anxiety Stress Scales.

[58] Exhibit 3, 183, [7].

[59] Ibid 185.

[60] See [60] of this Decision.

[61] K 10 score: 37 (severe).

[62] The period Dr Hantom was treating Mr Shaw.

[63] Exhibit 3, 2.

[64] As at January 2019.

[65] Exhibit 10, 2, [11].

[66] As is evidenced by Exhibit 10.

[67] T 3 - 82, lines 28 - 31.

[68] Exhibits 3 and 10.

[69] T 3 - 83, lines 5 - 13.

[70] Respondent's Closing Submissions, 30 November 2021, 4, [20].

[71] R v Butler [2009] QCA 111, [127] - [128]; Respondent's Closing Submissions, 30 November 2021, 4, [21].

[72] Fox v Percy [2003] 214 CLR 118, 167 - 168 [151]; Respondent's Closing Submissions, 30 November 2021, 4 [21].

[73] Respondent's Closing Submissions, 30 November 2021, 4 [21] - [22].

[74] Ibid [23].

[75] 2 January 2019.

[76] Workers' Compensation Regulator v Guymer [2017] QIRC 080.

[77] Ibid 2 [4].

[78] Ibid 3 [6].

[79] Ibid 6 [21].

[80] Ibid 7 [33].

[81] Ibid 7 [35].

[82] Scofield v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2018] QIRC 103.

[83] LexisNexis, Industrial Law Queensland, Service 119, 110,116 [71,005].

[84] [2016] QIRC 065, [9].

[85] Exhibit 1, 27.

[86] Ibid 26 - 29, 32.

[87] Exhibit 2, 13.

[88] [2014] QIRC 181, 41 [172]; also stated in Morrison v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 065, [8].

[89] (1941) 41 SR(NSW) 119.

[90] T 2 - 59, lines 26 - 32.

[91] Exhibit 10, 1 [8] - [9].

[92] Exhibit 2, 26.

[93] Exhibit 3, 63.

[94] Exhibit 10, 2 [11].

[95] Exhibit 3, 63.

[96] Amended List of Stressors, 1 June 2021, 1.

[97] Extract only from Amended List of Stressors, 1 June 2021.

[98] Exhibit 10; Respondent's Closing Submissions, 30 November 2021, 2 [10].

[99] T 1 - 22, lines 5 - 10; T 1 - 23, lines 1 - 17.

[100] T 1 - 22, lines 5 - 10; Respondent's Closing Submissions, 30 November 2021, 2 [10].

[101] Exhibit 1, 674.

[102] Exhibit 2, 23.

[103] Ibid 21.

[104] Exhibit 3, 5.

[105] Exhibit 1, 655 - 660.

[106] Ibid 685 - 686; Amended List of Stressors, 1 June 2021, 2 [3].

[107] 5 April 2019; Email from Mr Shaw to Dr Smith, 5 April 2019; GP Consultation Notes, 5 April 2019; Workers' Compensation Medical Certificate 'DFS'.

[108] Exhibit 1, 685 - 686.

[109] Exhibit 2, 20.

[110] Exhibit 1, 672.

[111] Ibid 679.

[112] Ibid 681.

[113] Ibid.

[114] T 1-19 line 35 - T 1-21 line 18; Respondent's Closing Submissions, 30 November 2021, 4 [25].

[115] T 1 - 19, lines 34 - 45; T 1 - 20, lines 1 - 46; T 1 - 21, lines 1 - 18.

[116] Exhibit 2, 18.

[117] T 1 - 23, lines 14 - 17.

[118] Exhibit 2, 18.

[119] [2021] ICQ 13.

[120] [2021] ICQ 13.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 3)

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 3)

  • MNC:

    [2022] QIRC 33

  • Court:

    QIRC

  • Judge(s):

    Member McLennan IC

  • Date:

    10 Feb 2022

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Church v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2015] ICQ 31
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2015] ICQ 31
Cite 2 - [2015] ICQ 31
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 214 CLR 118
Cite 2 - (2003) 214 CLR 118
Kavanagh v The Commonwealth (1960) 103 CLR 547
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1960) 103 CLR 547
Cite 2 - (1960) 103 CLR 547
Linke v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) [2014] QIRC 181
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2014] QIRC 181
Cite 2 - [2014] QIRC 181
Morrison v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2016] QIRC 65
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2016] QIRC 65
Cite 2 - [2016] QIRC 65
Cite 3 - [2016] QIRC 65
Nunan v Cockatoo Docks & Engineering Co Ltd (1941) 41 SR NSW 119
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (1941) 41 SR NSW 119
Cite 2 - (1941) 41 SR NSW 119
R v Butler[2010] 1 Qd R 325; [2009] QCA 111
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2009] QCA 111
Cite 2 - [2009] QCA 111
Ribeiro v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2019] QIRC 203
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QIRC 203
Cite 2 - [2019] QIRC 203
Scofield v Workers' Compensation Regulator (No. 2) [2018] QIRC 103
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2018] QIRC 103
Cite 2 - [2018] QIRC 103
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2000) 49 NSWLR 262
Cite 2 - (2000) 49 NSWLR 262
State of Queensland v Q-COMP and Beverley Coyne (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
Cite 2 - (2003) 172 QGIG 1447
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Guymer [2017] QIRC 80
7 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2017] QIRC 80
Cite 2 - [2017] QIRC 80
Cite 3 - [2017] QIRC 80
Cite 4 - [2017] QIRC 80
Cite 5 - [2017] QIRC 80
Cite 6 - [2017] QIRC 80
Cite 7 - [2017] QIRC 80
Workers' Compensation Regulator v Queensland Nurses and Midwives' Union of Employees (No 2) [2021] ICQ 13
3 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2021] ICQ 13
Cite 2 - [2021] ICQ 13
Cite 3 - [2021] ICQ 13

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Prior v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2023] QIRC 1042 citations
Shaw v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2022] ICQ 246 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.