Debs v Neuroscience Research Australia - [2025] NSWPIC 116

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Debs v Neuroscience Research Australia [2025] NSWPIC 116
APPLICANT:	Sophie Debs
RESPONDENT:	Neuroscience Research Australia
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	31 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation and medical expenses in respect of psychological injury due to bullying and harassment; applicant employed by the respondent for a period of time before resigning and accepting appointment as a visiting PhD student to conduct studies at respondent’s premises; whether during PhD studies the applicant was a worker/deemed worker; whether injury arose out of or in the course of employment; Held – applicant was not a worker or deemed worker while conducting her PhD studies; injury was not sustained in the course of employment; although injury arose out of employment, employment was not the main contributing factor to the injury; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Sophie Debs (the applicant) was employed by Neuroscience Research Australia (the respondent) from June 2019 to 15 November 2019 as a full-time research assistant.
On 18 November 2019, the applicant commenced PhD studies through the University of New South Wales (UNSW). The applicant was awarded a scholarship by the Australian government to complete her PhD studies, which was administered by UNSW and paid to the applicant as a stipend. The applicant undertook her research at the respondent’s premises.
The applicant claims that she sustained a psychological injury as a result of psychological and emotional bullying by a research assistant employed by the respondent, which commenced when the applicant was employed as a research assistant but continued after she commenced her PhD studies.
Liability for the injury was disputed by the respondent’s insurer in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 7 February 2022.
After the applicant made a claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment resulting from the injury, a further notice was issued pursuant to s 78 of the 1998 Act on
2 January 2024.
The present proceedings were commenced by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) on 24 September 2024. The applicant claims lump sum compensation and medical and related treatment expenses.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter proceeded to a conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 28 November 2024. After an extended period in conciliation, the parties were unable to reach a mutually acceptable agreement. As oral submissions were not able to be completed in the remaining time, the parties were directed to serve and lodge written submissions according to a timetable.
Neither party complied with the timetable for written submissions, apparently because discussions towards an agreed resolution were ongoing. On 31 January 2025, the Commission made a direction extending the timetable for written submissions.…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Debs v Neuroscience Research Australia and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPIC 116
Decision Date: 31 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Debs v Neuroscience Research Australia, the applicant sought a lump sum compensation and medical expenses for a psychological injury she alleged was caused by bullying and harassment during her employment. The applicant had worked for Neuroscience Research Australia before resigning to take up a position as a visiting PhD student, which she conducted at the same premises. The respondent denied liability for the claim, asserting that the applicant was not a worker or deemed worker during her PhD studies and that the injury was not sustained in the course of employment. The court was required to determine whether the applicant was a worker or deemed worker under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and whether the injury arose out of or in the course of her employment.

The court examined the definition of a worker under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and found that the applicant, while conducting her PhD studies, did not meet the criteria of a worker or deemed worker as she was not engaged under a contract of service. The court also considered whether the injury arose out of or in the course of employment, and found that although the injury arose out of employment, the employment was not the main contributing factor to the injury. The court held that the bullying and harassment occurred outside of the applicant's regular duties, and that the injury was not sustained in the course of employment. The applicant's claim for compensation was therefore denied.

The court dismissed the applicant's claim for lump sum compensation and medical expenses, finding in favour of the respondent. The court held that the applicant was not a worker or deemed worker while conducting her PhD studies and that the injury was not sustained in the course of employment, even though it arose out of employment. The court found that employment was not the main contributing factor to the injury, and therefore the respondent was not liable for the applicant's claim. The final orders of the court were that the respondent was not liable for the applicant's claim for compensation.

Orders