Legal Research
Cases
Georges v Barnardos Australia

Georges v Barnardos Australia

Case [2025] NSWPICPD 61 1 September 2025

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Georges v Barnardos Australia [2025] NSWPICPD 61
APPELLANT:	Rebecca Georges
RESPONDENT:	Barnardos Australia
INSURER:	Employers Mutual NSW Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W28929/24
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Phillips
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	1 September 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Certificate of Determination dated 6 March 2025 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – psychological injury – COVID-19 vaccine mandate – psychological injury wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken by the employer in respect of discipline under section 11A of the 1987 Act – Martsoukos v Secretary, Department of Education [2024] NSWPICPD 85 distinguished
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr D McCabe, solicitor
McCabe Partners Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr J Hart, counsel
Hall & Wilcox Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Georges v Barnardos Australia [2025] NSWPIC 74
SENIOR MEMBER:	Ms K Haddock
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	6 March 2025

INTRODUCTION

This is yet another matter involving a dispute about the development and application by an employer of a COVID-19 vaccination mandate.
Rebecca Georges (the appellant) was employed by Barnardos Australia (the respondent) as a co-ordinator of its home interaction program for both parents and young children in the New South Wales south coast. This was known as the “HIPPY” program. The appellant commenced employment with the respondent in 2010.
In February 2021 the appellant went on maternity leave. This period coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic. At the time that the appellant embarked on maternity leave, it was envisaged that she would return to work in or about March 2022. During this period, the respondent had commenced a process of consultation with its staff about the development and implementation of a vaccination policy. This resulted in a policy entitled “COVID-19 Vaccination Policy”[1] (policy) first becoming operative on 8 December 2021.[2] The policy inter alia required staff to be fully vaccinated unless they gained an exemption under the policy.
[1] Reply to Application to Resolve a Dispute (reply), p 35.
[2] Reply, p 50, [14] “Version control and change history”.
The appellant was opposed to being vaccinated. The appellant applied for an extension of her maternity leave, an additional year, in the hope that the requirement for vaccination might change. This request was granted by the respondent. Over time, both the appellant and respondent had various exchanges, by telephone, email and correspondence, about the vaccination mandate, but they were not able to resolve the matter. Ultimately, the appellant’s employment was terminated on 17 October 2023.[3] This process is more fully set out in the Senior Member’s decision (see below).
[3] Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 153.
The appellant alleged that:
“My psychological injury resulted from my employer’s coercion and discrimination in order to receive the vaccination, as they made it a mandatory requirement of my employment and provided no support to me.”[4]
[4] Appellant’s statement dated 14 March 2024, ARD, p 12, [9].
The appellant submitted a claim for workers compensation, signed 30 April 2023, stating…

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 Georges v Barnardos Australia

Details

AGLC: Georges v Barnardos Australia [2025] NSWPICPD 61
Case: [2025] NSWPICPD 61
Decision Date: 1 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Georges, a worker, sought workers compensation for a psychological injury sustained following the imposition of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate by Barnardos Australia, their employer. The dispute arose in the context of disciplinary action taken by the employer, leading to a claim for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act. The matter was decided in the NSW Personal Injury Commission, a body responsible for determining claims for personal injuries in the workplace.

The central legal issues revolved around whether the psychological injury claimed by Georges was caused by a reasonable action taken by the employer in respect of discipline and whether it fell within the exclusions provided by section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act. Specifically, the court needed to decide if the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by a disciplinary action that was reasonable in all the circumstances.

The court meticulously examined the facts and the statutory provisions, drawing on the precedent set in Martsoukos v Secretary, Department of Education. It held that the employer's action in implementing the vaccine mandate was reasonable and necessary in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the psychological injury suffered by Georges was found to be wholly or predominantly caused by this reasonable disciplinary action. Therefore, the claim was dismissed under section 11A of the Act.

The final orders of the court were that Georges' claim for workers compensation was dismissed, as the injury was excluded under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act.

Orders