MH v Australian Capital Territory

This matter concerned an appeal by MH against a decision of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute centred on the termination of MH's employment, with MH alleging the termination was for a prohibited reason under the relevant legislation. The court was required to determine whether the employer, the Australian Capital Territory, had discharged its onus of proving that the adverse action taken against MH was not for a prohibited reason.

The central legal issue was whether the decision-maker, Ms Chapman, had acted for a prohibited reason when terminating MH's employment. This required the court to assess the evidence presented by both parties, particularly the credibility and reliability of Ms Chapman's stated reasons for the termination, and to determine if those reasons were genuinely held and not influenced by any proscribed considerations, such as MH's lodging of a bullying claim.

The court applied the principles established in *Bendigo and District Aboriginal Co-operative Ltd v Cruickshank*, emphasising that the focus of the inquiry is on the reasons of the decision-maker at the time the adverse action was taken. The court noted the significant advantage a trial judge has in assessing the state of mind of a witness, drawing on the reasoning of Heydon J in *Bendigo*. The court accepted Ms Chapman's evidence, both affidavit and oral, finding it convincing and credible. It was satisfied that Ms Chapman did not act for any proscribed reason, but rather for the reasons she articulated, which were that the decision to terminate MH's employment was made well before MH's bullying claim was lodged and without consideration of any prohibited reason. The court concluded that MH's bullying claim played no part in Ms Chapman's decision.