JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 October 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 December 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	AB v XYZ Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 788

---

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Appeal and cross-appeal from orders of Magistrates’ Court in claim for compensation under Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) – Appellant claimed to have suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depression caused by sexual assaults and associated harassment and abuse – Magistrate not satisfied that alleged sexual assaults occurred – Magistrate nevertheless found that appellant was suffering from ‘significant stress’ and unable to work from April 2008 to March 2010 – Whether Magistrate decided claim on a basis not litigated – No evidence to support finding that appellant had suffered a mental injury due to work stressors not related to the alleged sexual assaults – Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic), s 82.

APPEAL – Whether Magistrate’s decision affected by apprehended bias – Whether comments of Magistrate during appellant’s evidence produced ineradicable apprehension of prejudgment – Need to avoid assessing credibility based on stereotypical assumptions about victims of sexual assault – Approach to assessing credibility where delay in reporting sexual assault – Magistrate’s comments in context did not give rise to reasonable apprehension of bias – Whether Magistrate failed to have regard to material considerations – Magistrate’s oral reasons did not mention expert evidence about delayed reporting of sexual assault – Lengthy delay in delivering judgment – No presumption that Magistrate considered relevant evidence not mentioned in reasons – Magistrate disregarded relevant evidence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms E Levine
For the Respondent	Mr J Gorton QC with Mr M Hooper	Russell Kennedy

HER HONOUR:

AB worked for XYZ Pty Ltd from August 2007 to 19 March 2008.[1] She was engaged by CD, the managing director of XYZ, to manage the merger of XYZ and another firm. In August 2012, AB made a claim against XYZ under the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) (AC Act), for compensation in respect of psychiatric injuries caused by ‘sexual assault and associated harassment and abuse’. Her claimed injuries were post-traumatic stress disorder and depression.
[1]Pseudonym orders were made in this proceeding and in the Magistrates’ Court proceeding, to the effect that the appellant is to be referred to as ‘AB’, the respondent is to be referred to as ‘XYZ Pty Ltd’, and its managing director is to be referred to as ‘CD’.

The claim was rejected by XYZ’s claims agent, and did not resolve at conciliation. On 31 May 2013, AB filed a complaint in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, seeking declarations that she was entitled to weekly payments of compensation and medical and like expenses in accordance with the AC Act, from 19 March 2008 and ongoing. The complaint alleged that AB ‘sustained…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading AB v XYZ Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: AB v XYZ Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 788
Case: [2019] VSC 788
Decision Date: 3 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

AB, the appellant, sought compensation for mental injuries sustained in the course of employment, which she claimed arose from sexual assaults, harassment, and abuse by her employer, XYZ Pty Ltd, the respondent. The matter was heard by a Magistrate in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, who dismissed the claim, holding that the appellant had not established that the alleged sexual assaults occurred. Despite this finding, the Magistrate held that the appellant was suffering from significant stress and unable to work from April 2008 to March 2010. AB appealed against the decision, arguing that the Magistrate had erred in concluding that there was no evidence of the sexual assaults and in assessing her credibility. XYZ cross-appealed, contending that the Magistrate had failed to consider relevant evidence and had delayed in delivering judgment.

The appeal raised two primary legal issues. First, whether the Magistrate had decided the claim on a basis not litigated and had failed to have regard to material considerations, particularly in relation to the appellant’s evidence and expert evidence about delayed reporting of sexual assault. Second, whether the Magistrate’s comments during the appellant’s evidence had produced an ineradicable apprehension of bias. The court had to determine if the Magistrate’s comments, in the context of the case, gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and if the Magistrate had erred in assessing the appellant’s credibility based on stereotypical assumptions about victims of sexual assault.

The Court of Appeal found that the Magistrate had erred in concluding that there was no evidence to support a finding that the appellant had suffered a mental injury due to work stressors not related to the alleged sexual assaults. The Magistrate’s reasons did not mention expert evidence about delayed reporting of sexual assault, which was a material consideration. The Court held that the Magistrate’s comments during the appellant’s evidence did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, and the Magistrate had not based the assessment of the appellant’s credibility on stereotypical assumptions. However, the Court found that the Magistrate had failed to consider relevant evidence and had disregarded the expert evidence about delayed reporting. The appeal was therefore upheld, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration.

The Court made no orders as to costs.

Orders