Liu v MIMIA

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal in *Liu v MIMIA*. The dispute concerned the interpretation of the *Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003* (Qld) (the Act) and whether a worker, Mr Liu, was entitled to compensation for a psychological injury sustained in the course of his employment. The employer, MIMIA, had denied liability for the claim.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the employer's conduct, which led to Mr Liu's psychological injury, constituted "misconduct" within the meaning of section 11A(1) of the Act. Section 11A(1) provides that an employer is not liable to pay compensation for a psychiatric or psychological disorder if the disorder is a consequence of or is contributed to by the injury being a consequence of or contributed to by the lawful management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the worker's employment. The High Court had to determine if the employer's actions, which included a failure to address workplace bullying and harassment, amounted to lawful management action taken in a reasonable way.

McHugh and Heydon JJ, in separate judgments, allowed the appeal. Their Honours found that the employer's failure to take reasonable steps to address the bullying and harassment constituted a failure to take lawful management action. Consequently, the employer's conduct did not fall within the exception provided by section 11A(1) of the Act. The legal principle applied was that an employer has a duty of care to provide a safe working environment, and a failure to address known risks of psychological harm, such as bullying, could not be characterised as lawful management action taken in a reasonable way.

The High Court ordered that the appeal be allowed, setting aside the decision of the Court of Appeal of Queensland and remitting the matter to the Queensland Workers' Compensation Regulator for determination according to law.