Moussavi and Comcare (Compensation)

Moussavi and Comcare (Compensation) [2022] AATA 2838 (1 September 2022)
Division:GENERAL DIVISION
File Numbers: 2019/2210 & 2019/8215
Re:Granaz Moussavi
APPLICANT

AndComcare
RESPONDENT

Decision
Tribunal:R Cameron, Senior Member
Date:1 September 2022
Place:Melbourne

In application number 2019/2210, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 12 March 2019.
In application number 2019/8215, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 9 December 2019.
In substitution of those decisions, the Tribunal decides:
(a)The applicant suffered incapacity and impairment as a result of an injury identified as an adjustment disorder: mixed anxiety and depressive reaction, to which employment with the Department of Home Affairs contributed to a significant degree, which was the subject of a claim for compensation dated 17 September 2018, and which gives rise to entitlement to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”).
(b)As a result of the injury, the applicant suffers from impairment that is likely to continue indefinitely, and which is assessed to be at least 10% according to Table 5.1 of the approved Comcare Guide (Edition 2.1), and entitles her to:
(i)Lump sum compensation pursuant to section 24 of the Act; and
(ii)Further lump sum compensation pursuant to section 27 of the Act in respect of non-economic loss, assessed in accordance with her answers to the relevant assessment form submitted with the claim.
(c)The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs and disbursements in respect of this application pursuant to section 67 of the Act.
...[sgd].....................................................................
R Cameron, Senior Member
Catchwords
COMPENSATION - two applications – accepted that claimed condition outside boundaries of normal mental functioning – accepted that claimed condition was contributed to by employment – issues for determination – whether condition suffered resulted from reasonable administrative action – whether condition suffered is permanent – if permanent, to what degree – deployment to Nauru – working as a translator – claimed condition found to be adjustment disorder – applicant likely to remain significantly psychiatrically impaired – impairment not resolved and considered permanent – decisions set aside and substituted
Legislation
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Secondary Materials
Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 - Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment Edition 2.1
REASONS FOR DECISION
R Cameron, Senior Member
1 September 2022
INTRODUCTION
There are two applications before the Tribunal.
The first application (2019/2210) seeks a review of a decision made by the respondent on 12 March 2019, which affirmed a determination made on 11 January 2019 denying liability to pay compensation for a psychological condition, described as “psychological injury, PTSD trauma and excessive stress”, under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (“the Act”).
The second application (2019/8215) seeks review of a decision made by the respondent on 9 December 2019, which affirmed a previous determination dated 26 September 2019, which had denied liability to pay compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss under sections 24 and 27 of the Act.
THE EVIDENCE
These applications were heard at the same time as applications brought by Yasmin Moradi[1] and Nikram Rohani.[2] This was done because there was, in some respects, a common factual matrix between the several applications before the Tribunal. Also, several of the expert medical witnesses gave evidence in more than one matter, and it was convenient to have them do so at the same time.
[1] Nos 2018/4986, 2019/4964 and 2019/5015.
[2] Nos 2018/7169 and 2019/7431.
In terms of documentary evidence, there was a joint Tribunal book consisting of several thousand pages. There are also several individual exhibits that were tendered in evidence.
The applicant, Moradi, Rohani, Baheer Wardak and Chamie Fares gave oral evidence. Slavica Dale, Jason Jackson, Lauren Richardson, Jason Lynn and Nicki Myers also gave oral evidence.
A Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Turnbull, who had examined the applicant, also gave evidence from the witness box. Associate Professor Mendelson, who had examined the applicant on behalf of the respondent, also gave oral evidence.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION BY THE TRIBUNAL
The respondent has accepted that the psychological conditions diagnosed by Consultant Psychiarists Dr Sheehan, Dr Turnbull and Associate Professor Mendelson, support a finding that the applicant has suffered the claimed condition which is outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour.[3]
[3] Paragraph 2.3 of the respondent's submissions dated 11 April 2022 is referred to.
The respondent has also accepted that the claimed condition was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the applicant’s employment with the Department of Immigration and Border Protection.[4]
[4] Paragraph 2.4 of the respondent's submissions dated 11 April 2022 is referred to.
Given these concessions, there are two issues for determination by the Tribunal. Those issues are as follows:
(a)Whether the condition suffered by the applicant resulted from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the applicant’s employment, and without which the condition as defined by section 5A(1) of the Act would not have been suffered; and
(b)Whether the applicant suffered an impairment that is permanent, and if so, what is the degree of the impairment for the purposes of section 24 and section 27 of the Act.
RELEVANT FACTS
The applicant was born in Iran and Farsi is her first language. She also speaks some Kurdish. On 14 December 2010 she was engaged by Translation and Interpreting Services (“TIS”), which is a division or part of the Department of Home Affairs. She was employed on what is known as a contract basis. Initially, she was retained as a Level 2 Farsi interpreter, before sitting a test and being re-accredited as a Level 3 interpreter in 2012.
The applicant has been deployed to various regional offshore processing centres operated by the Department of Home Affairs since she was employed by TIS, including Christmas Island and, on six or seven occasions, the island of Nauru. The subject matter of this application concerns two deployments that the applicant undertook to the island of Nauru in October 2016 and November 2017.
The conditions on Nauru for the interpreters were challenging, to say the least. Indeed, each translator, prior to being deployed to Nauru, is required to pass a resilience test which includes, amongst other things, an interview with a psychologist.
The food and accommodation on the island for interpreters was not particularly good.
Then there were the interactions that the interpreters had with the detainees, or as they were called “clients”, on an almost daily basis. The applicant gave some very compelling evidence as to the kinds of experiences she had with clients. Such experiences included detainees swallowing screws, going on hunger strikes and other such behaviour. She gave evidence of a man who had approximately 50 to 60 large cuts all over his body that had become infected. There were indeed suicides and attempted overdoses on medication. There were other occasions where inmates deliberately hit their heads on the wall, intending to harm themselves to the maximum possible extent. The applicant explained that such behaviour was a regular occurrence and was extremely trying for the interpreters who had to deal with these people. Frequently, they were interpreting for them at the hospital or medical treatment facilities on the island, in a very tense and emotional setting.
The applicant stated that there were differences, or to some extent, tensions between some interpreters. She put this down to the stress and adverse personal and environmental circumstances, particularly because there were interpreters of different nationalities, languages, and religious backgrounds. In the confined living arrangements and the tense atmosphere of the island, there were, as she put it, jealousies, poor behaviour, angry clashes, and some who sought favouritism with supervisors by various means.
The first events that were identified by the applicant in her evidence, and her history given to healthcare professionals who examined her, occurred during a deployment to Nauru in October 2016. It involved interactions between her and her then Interpreter Liaison Officer (“ILO”), Dale.
The applicant had not had any prior dealings with Dale. She says their relationship was a good one until the applicant questioned her rostered timetable. After she had done so, and to use the applicant’s terms Dale “corrected her”, she considered she became the subject of bullying by Dale.
The applicant gave evidence that she had completed a nightshift and was starting late the next morning, as was the custom. On the morning of her scheduled late start there was a general staff meeting. The applicant stated that during such a meeting Dale, in effect, singled her out by saying, “let’s name and shame those who come late”. The applicant stated that she felt embarrassed, that she was being singled out in front of her fellow interpreters and believed that she was the subject of ridicule. She saw the Employee Assistance Program (“EAP”) psychologist following this incident.
The next interaction between Dale and the applicant, relied upon by the applicant, occurred on 13 October 2016.[5] She said she received a call from Dale who aggressively requested that she wanted to speak with her in person. A meeting was arranged for later that same day, which occurred outside the Australian Border Force (“ABF”) offices. According to the applicant, Dale informed her that she was disappointed with her work performance. The applicant described Dale’s manner as aggressive, and she felt intimidated, attacked and inferior. The applicant asked Dale to elaborate as to what she actually meant. Dale responded by saying that third persons present during her interpreting assignments, such as lawyers, were not happy with the manner in which she conducted her interpreting.
[5] Paragraph 19 of the statement of the applicant dated 25 September 2020 is referred to.
The applicant said she informed Dale that she needed more information so that she could improve her performance, but Dale refused to provide further detail, other than to say that she conducted her interpreting in a mechanical manner. The applicant says she felt personally attacked by these comments. The applicant asked again what she was doing that was inappropriate and said that Dale told her that she had a dry face, was unengaged and lacked charm. When in the witness box, Dale denied using these words. The applicant considered that these were personal attacks upon her and her professionalism. Following that meeting, the applicant sent an email to Dale asserting that she had provided her interpreting services according to the code of conduct and ethics of the profession to the highest level of quality and standards.[6]
[6] The email was attachment SD1 to Dale's statement of 24 August 2020.
The following day, on 14 October 2016, the applicant and Dale had a telephone conversation in which, as Dale put it, she provided details of the feedback she had received from the ABF involving the applicant’s demeanour and body language. The applicant followed that conversation up with a further email on the same day, reiterating that she was confident she had provided her interpreting services to the highest level of quality and standard.[7] She requested details of the allegations made against her in writing, as she considered it an important part of her personal development as an interpreter to respond appropriately.[8]
[7] That email was attachment SD2 to Dale's statement of 24 August 2020.
[8] That email was attachment SD2 to Dale's statement of 24 August 2020.
Following receipt of the applicant’s email of 14 October 2016, Dale sought guidance from her “Operations Lead” for Nauru in relation to managing the applicant’s response to receiving feedback. It was decided that a formal meeting be scheduled between them. This took place on 17 October 2016.
Present at that meeting on 17 October 2016 were the applicant, Dale, an observer brought by the applicant, Alireza Saffari, and the Operations Lead on the island, Jo Prophet.[9] Several topics were canvassed in the meeting. Dale said that the ABF officers had requested that the applicant not be reassigned to them in future dealings with refugees or asylum seekers, that she was not to approach stakeholders to provide feedback as she had done with a Senior Medical Officer, and that she was required to show up for her appointments on time. The applicant says that Dale raised matters of her performance; these were said to include failing to maintain eye contact and not fully engaging with the client and/or third-party. She also says that Dale stated that she received feedback poorly. It was also said that she was confusing and difficult to communicate with. The applicant stated that in this meeting she felt she was being intimidated by Dale and that Dale was doing her best to belittle her when the allegations in relation to her performance were baseless. She says she felt victimised.[10]
[9] Prophet did not give evidence at the hearing of the application.
[10] Paragraph 19 of the statement of the applicant dated 25 September 2020 is referred to.
Dale prepared a report of the meeting of 17 October 2016, which was in evidence.[11] A copy of the report was also emailed to Dale’s superior in Australia, Myers. Dale says in the report that it was a particularly difficult conversation to have with the applicant as the applicant weaves her words to a point where she, Dale, felt confused. It was also reported by Dale that the applicant does not accept feedback on her behaviour and how she is perceived by others, irrespective of her thinking and feeling. Dale also contended in the report that the applicant referred to the fundamentals of the code of ethics and professional conduct as the only thing that should matter. It should be observed that in the report which was copied to Myers there is no reference to the two emails, or perhaps more accurately, to the content of the two emails, that were sent by the applicant to Dale on 13 October and 14 October 2016. When probed about this fact in the witness box, Dale said she could not explain why this was so and was not sure why she would leave something like that out.
[11] It was attachment SD3 to Dale's statement of 24 August 2020.
Following the meeting of 17 October 2016, the applicant said she felt she was being micromanaged and, as she put it, under heavy surveillance. In the last week of October, the applicant says she was called to Dale’s office. She was probed about having received positive feedback from a specialist doctor for whom she had interpreted during an assignment. The applicant contends that Dale accused her of having pursued “the professionals” in order to advance her profile with positive feedback, and that she should stop seeking such feedback.[12] The applicant said that this response from Dale made her feel desperate, sad, and disappointed; and it damaged her confidence as an interpreter doing her best to deliver the best service she was capable of. She stated she felt cornered and bullied.
[12] Paragraph 19 of the statement of the applicant dated 25 September 2020 is referred to.
During the period of these interactions with Dale, the applicant says she consulted counsellors through the EAP. Upon her return to Australia, she consulted her General Practitioner Dr Marhoon, who prescribed her with antidepressants. She continued seeing the EAP in Melbourne for the maximum of 10 sessions that the Department of Home Affairs allocated each employee.
The applicant stated that from November 2016 until February 2017 she heavily reduced her workload due to her depression.[13] She only undertook onshore assignments. She continued to see the counsellor through the EAP program; and she was continuing to take the anti-depressant “Lexapro” that had been prescribed for her, and which she said she took for anxiety and depression. She also had three sessions with Dr Harvey Abbott, a Clinical Psychologist in June and July 2017.
[13] Paragraph 19 of the statement of the applicant dated 25 September 2020 is referred to.
The Tribunal does not consider that the actions of Dale constituted bullying, victimisation or personal attacks, as the applicant contends. Dale was an ILO who had received complaints from the ABF about the applicant’s performance. What she did was to address those complaints with the applicant. The Tribunal is satisfied that she did so in a professional but probably direct manner, which has caused the applicant to react as she did. The Tribunal is satisfied, nonetheless, on the material that the interactions between Dale and the applicant did to a significant degree contribute to the onset of a psychiatric condition from which she now suffers, and to the condition that she consulted Dr Marhoon about upon her return to Australia.
Shortly after the applicant’s return to Australia she consulted Dr Marhoon. In his clinical notes of 3 November 2016, Dr Marhoon recorded “Symptoms of anxiety; has been under a lot of stress; mainly work-related; works as an interpreter mostly in detention centres; always feels anxious, worries a lot; tiredness; panic attacks; insomnia; low and depressed mood; poor concentration and memory; denied suicidal thoughts; started seeing a psychologist at work; needs to start antidepressant; Council”.[14] She was prescribed “Pristiq” 50mg tablets, which is an antidepressant.
[14] See ST3, page 20 of the Supplementary T documents.
A report from Dr Marhoon dated 18 September 2018 was in evidence.[15] In that report he stated that the applicant had been suffering from anxiety and depression over the last two years. He stated that she had been under a lot of work-related stress since then and had experienced a few stressful and traumatic work incidents. He recorded that her anxiety had been getting worse, with symptoms including insomnia, tiredness, poor concentration and memory, low mood and poor motivation. It was also recorded that the applicant’s first consultation with him concerning symptoms of anxiety and depression was on 3 November 2016 and had consulted him several times afterwards for the same reason. It is also noted that the applicant was started on antidepressant medication and the dose was doubled in August 2018 to assist more with the condition.
[15] Document T5, page 298 of the T documents.
The Tribunal should observe that it is satisfied that when the applicant consulted Dr Marhoon on 3 November 2016, she suffered from a diagnosable psychiatric condition which, as noted earlier, had been caused to a significant degree by reason of the interactions the applicant had with Dale, and which have been recounted earlier in these reasons.
The applicant commenced a further deployment to Nauru in November 2017. It was for eight weeks. After approximately one week on the island the applicant was informed that her deployment was to be terminated prematurely. She was able to swap deployments with an older Farsi interpreter who was nearing the end of his deployment and complete her term. Nonetheless, it is fair to say that this event did cause her some alarm.
At the same time as there was a reduction in the number of interpreters, the government of Nauru required the interpreters to move accommodation from what was known as RPC-1 to Wilson’s Village, in the middle of the night when they would normally be sleeping. The applicant said that the experience of undertaking the move added to the stress that she was already experiencing working as an interpreter.

The accommodation at Wilson’s Village was considerably lower in standard and quality when compared with RPC-1. The rooms were very small. They contained metal bunk beds and there was little room to move. Wilson’s Village was located some distance from where the interpreters had to conduct their work. There was no regular electricity supply; it would frequently cut out and consequently there was no air-conditioning in a difficult tropical climate. Additionally, the applicant stated that the accommodation was not clean; it was riddled with cockroaches, there was a bad odour, and dirt and mould in the rooms. Each room accommodated two interpreters, so there was no real privacy.
Another problem with Wilson’s Village involved the presence of wild dogs around the village and throughout the island of Nauru. There was no protective fencing around Wilson’s Village to keep the dogs out.
Another matter that had an adverse effect on the applicant was the attitude of the detainees. The applicant states that she noted a heightened sense of anxiety amongst them by reason of the tensions between the governments of Nauru and Australia. As noted earlier in these reasons, the detainees were already engaging in behaviour that was extremely testing for the interpreters.
The applicant sought to complain about the conditions that the interpreters had to cope with whilst on the island. In particular, she sought to complain to the ILO, Jackson. It appears that she took up some form of petition and succeeded in obtaining signatures from approximately 10 interpreters. She says that Jackson reacted badly to her. He perceived her as an enemy and treated her unfairly.
In late November 2017, there was an incident early one morning between the applicant and Jackson, concerning the applicant’s failure to respond to a telephone call for an urgent interpreting assignment. Apparently, the applicant’s iPhone would not function inside the building that housed the mess hall. She was eating her breakfast and Jackson apparently told her to pack up, such that she could not finish her breakfast. He said she was needed on the job and that she had to do it. The applicant says that Jackson’s response was to treat her in a humiliating way; she felt intimidated, embarrassed and bullied. She also said she felt intentionally targeted and manipulated. When the applicant went to the assignment, she said there was no appointment whatsoever; it was, as she described, “an empty assignment”. As she put it, she was subject to intimidation, embarrassment and being told off for no reason. The Tribunal is satisfied that, collectively these matters, as recounted, contributed to a significant degree to the condition from which the applicant now suffers.
In December 2017, the applicant had interactions with several other interpreters; namely, Walker, Modaressy and Gillany. They led to complaints about the applicant's behaviour to Jackson. The applicant says that Jackson did not investigate the allegations, which he denied, but treated them as effectively proven. She stated that Jackson's attitude to her changed and he perceived her as a troublemaker and someone to be rid of. She says she was then treated differently to other interpreters, particularly by Jackson.
Jackson then apparently called the applicant into a meeting on 5 December 2017 and accused her of bullying a Kurdish interpreter. She denied these allegations and explained to Jackson what she said were the true facts concerning her interactions with that interpreter. Jackson responded that there were other complaints from other interpreters but did not provide any details or particulars of the allegations, other than to allege bullying. Details of the actual bullying were not identified. The applicant says that details of the allegations did not see the light of day until an investigation commissioned by the Department, and undertaken by KPMG, took place after the conclusion of her deployment. She contends that she was not given a fair hearing, and that Jackson had in effect concluded the matter against her before the meeting took place.
Jackson arranged for notes of the meeting to be taken and “minutes” prepared.[16] Those minutes reveal that Jackson certainly put to the applicant allegations of speaking to an interpreter who had made a written complaint against her, alleging she acted in an inappropriate manner which was aggressive and had asked him to withdraw from interpreting. The minutes record the applicant stating that the allegations were a lie. She stated that she believed there was gang-related behaviour going on between Kurdish and Farsi interpreters. The minutes also record that Jackson explained that a full investigation into the matter would be occurring, and that the applicant may be issued with a warning or sent home in regard to bullying.
[16] The minutes are attachment "JJ-7" to the statement of Jackson dated 15 March 2020.
It should be noted that the evidence before the Tribunal reveals that Jackson received a written complaint about the applicant’s behaviour on 5 December 2017.[17]
[17] The written complaint is attachment "JJ-4” to Jackson's witness statement of 15 March 2020.
Based upon the contents of the minutes of the meeting and the evidence of Jackson, the Tribunal considers that at the meeting on 5 December 2017 details of the allegations made by the interpreter against the applicant were provided to her.
The applicant says that because she did not know the details of the allegations against her, she felt significantly attacked and her anxiety turned into panic.
Notwithstanding that the Tribunal has found that the details of the allegations made against her were provided to the applicant at the meeting on 5 December 2017, it accepts that the process itself did, to a significant degree, contribute to her condition.
The applicant continued to experience difficulties with fellow interpreters, which prompted her to send emails to Jackson’s immediate superior, Myers.[18] In those emails she firmly stated her position in relation to allegations that were levelled against her. It is apparent that the allegations made against her were treated by some in the TIS as proven. This is evidenced by an email from Lai, the Operations Lead on the Island of Nauru, to Myers on 8 December 2017 asking for the applicant’s current deployment to be terminated as soon as possible. That email stated there had been written and verbal complaints that the applicant had repeatedly harassed other staff in attempts to drive them off the island and obtain positions in preference for herself and her colleagues. He also asserted that they were now aware of vexatious complaints made by the applicant against officers of the Department that did not reflect the events seen and heard by other witnesses.[19] The applicant gave evidence that she did not know about that email. The Tribunal notes that at the meeting Jackson did not discuss with her the prospect of ending her deployment. He did not say there was an ongoing investigation. Lai did not give evidence before the Tribunal.
[18] Emails were sent by the applicant to Myers on 5 December 2017 (attachment NM-19 to Myers’ statement), 14 December 2017 (attachment NM-21 to Myers’ statement) and 11 January 2018 (attachment NM-23 to Myers’ statement).
[19] Lai’s lengthy email of 8 December 2017 is attachment NM-20 to the statement of Myers made on 18 March 2020.
Following the meeting on 5 December 2017, the applicant contends that she was treated differently by Jackson, when compared with other interpreters on the island of Nauru. Another instance of this treatment occurred with respect to her partner, who was a Pashtu language interpreter. His birthday occurred on his day off but the applicant’s day off was on a different day. A common practice amongst interpreters was to swap days off for various reasons, which according to the applicant was regularly approved. The applicant went to Jackson and said that it was her partner’s birthday and asked if she could swap her day off so that she could share the day with him. Jackson refused to allow her to do so. The applicant noticed that after this occurrence, Jackson allowed days off to be swapped for other interpreters without any difficulty. The applicant considered that Jackson’s behaviour was petty and immature, as well as unreasonable. She said it was clearly done to show his displeasure and dislike for her, and to let her know of his power over deployment.
After the applicant attended the meeting with Jackson where allegations of bullying were made against her, it became common knowledge in the interpreters’ room. The applicant said that things were said to her in ridicule, making jokes of her and calling her names. She was accused by fellow interpreters of being a bully, words were said to her such as, “don’t bully me”, “don’t touch me”, “don’t come to me”, “you’re a bully and I’m going to report you”. This daily behaviour from fellow interpreters continued throughout the remainder of her deployment and, as she put it, many times every day. It started with Farsi language speakers and then spread to other interpreters in the room. Although these comments were made in a jocular fashion, understandably they did have an effect upon the applicant.
Following these events, the applicant stated that her anxiety turned into panic.[20] As she put it, it went out of control such that it was getting in her way, and she felt exposed. She stated it was not an easy thing to deal with, being considered or named as a bully. She was very worried.
[20] Paragraph 48 of the statement of the applicant dated 25 September 2020 is referred to.
The Tribunal considers that these continuing allegations of bullying, coupled with the name-calling in the interpreters’ room, and the way they were handled including the meeting of 5 December 2017, which caused the applicant considerable stress, did, to a significant degree, also contribute to her ongoing condition.
Upon her return to Australia the applicant consulted Dr Marhoon again. His clinical notes revealed the following, “Symptoms of depression and anxiety; ongoing for months; worse recently; has been under a lot of stress lately; lost her job; relationship issues; lost her grandmother passed away, was very close to her; possible PTSD; found her cousin hung himself; had to help him and his family; has been feeling sad; always tearful and crying; anxious, worries a lot; poor interrupted sleep; poor concentration and attention; denied suicidal thoughts; responded before to Lexapro; happy to try again”.[21]
[21] See ST3, page 19 of the Supplementary T documents.
The Applicant continued to consult Dr Marhoon throughout 2018 for symptoms of anxiety and depression.
THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE
Dr Marhoon
Details of Dr Marhoon’s report have been recorded earlier in these reasons and need not be repeated.[22]
[22] Dr Marhoon did not give evidence at the hearing of the application.
Dr Abbott
A report dated 27 July 2017 from Dr Abbott, a Psychologist was in evidence.[23] He did not give evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing. The contents of the report are referred to in their entirety. He noted the applicant reported a number of compounding and cumulative stress events over the past five years, specifically referring to incidents that occurred while deployed as an interpreter at the Nauru detention centre. Dr Abbott observed that the applicant has experienced a number of disturbing traumatic workplace events that continued to distress her and produced current episodes of anxiety ARD-T (99).[24] He stated these findings were consistent with her workplace experiences. He opined that she clearly met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual V (“DSM-V”) requirements for adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression.[25] He observed that the applicant’s psychological reaction appeared to exist against a background of a failed grievance procedure with management and vicarious exposure to the trauma of refugees. These events have completely overwhelmed her normally effective coping strategies. Her condition results in exposure to traumatic events in her role as an interpreter working in onshore and offshore detention centres.
[23] See T5, commencing at page 287.
[24] Referred to at T5, page 291 of the T documents.
[25] Referred to at T5, page 291 of the T documents.
Dr Sheehan
A report from Dr Sheehan, Psychiatrist, was in evidence.[26] He diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a moderately severe chronic adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood.
[26] Dr Sheehan did not give evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing of the application. His report was document T13 of the T documents.
Dr Sheehan considered that it was probable that the applicant suffered an adjustment disorder following her deployment to the island of Nauru in late 2016. He considered that the condition likely resolved during 2017.
He opined that, based on the available information, there was a causal connection between the applicant’s conditions and her employment with the Department of Home Affairs. There appeared to him to be multiple factors leading to such causal connection. These factors included the applicant’s allegations against her then manager that she was subjected to targeting and bullying behaviour, claims and counterclaims against her of bullying which led to the KPMG investigation, her requests for certain days off being denied, and sundry discussions that she had with the Department of Home Affairs. Dr Sheehan also recorded that the factors were prolonged and were relevant to the perpetuation of the applicant’s condition, noting that she was unable to work, and that this led to financial instability and also instability with her own accommodation. He reported that the applicant stated her life was turned upside down. He was unable to precisely weigh each factor but stated there appeared to be an overall contribution to the applicant’s condition.
Dr Sheehan recorded that the effects have persisted as the applicant has developed a chronic condition, which includes symptoms such as lowered mood, prominent anxiety and significant sleep disturbance. He was unable to determine when the effects would cease; and he considered that the symptoms were likely to persist until the applicant was geographically stable and was able to return to work.
Dr Sheehan considered that the applicant’s prognosis is guarded. He recommended referral to a Consultant Psychiatrist for adjustment in her antidepressant medication and suggested increasing the dosage to assist in stabilising her mood.
Dr Turnbull
Dr Turnbull outlined the history of relevant events, which included an overview of the applicant’s experiences with clients on the island of Nauru, her interactions with Dale and her interactions with Jackson.[27]
[27] Dr Turnball’s report is found at ST4 of the Supplementary T documents.
He referred to a previous report of Dr Sheehan and said, “I do not necessarily disagree with Dr Sheehan” and the diagnosis at the time, of an adjustment disorder with anxious mood.[28] However, considering the applicant’s psychiatric trajectory as a whole, her response to treatment, and her level of functioning and symptomology today, it was his assessment that the intensity and duration of her symptoms now amount to a major depressive disorder with significant anxiety.[29]
[28] See ST4, page 28 of the Supplementary T documents.
[29] See ST4, page 28 of the Supplementary T documents.
Dr Turnbull observed there were no pre-existing conditions and the account he received was that the applicant’s psychiatric health declined during and after her interactions with Dale and then with Jackson. He then opined that if the applicant’s account is correct, it was his impression that the main source of the psychiatric injury was her interactions with her managers, her perception of being unfairly treated, and her feeling of being unheard by, and not being dealt with fairly by her employer. He also found that the accumulation of those experiences was a substantial contribution to her psychiatric status.[30]
[30] See ST4, page 30 of the Supplementary T documents.
Dr Turnbull was requested to provide an assessment of the applicant’s permanent impairment in accordance with Chapter 5 of the Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of Permanent Impairment (Edition 2.1) (“the Guide”). He assessed a current impairment at 10% according to the relevant table.[31] He also opined that for the foreseeable future, the applicant is likely to remain significantly psychiatrically impaired. As at the date of his assessment, he believed that the applicant was completely incapacitated to undertake any conventional work. He reiterated this opinion whilst in the witness box.
[31] See ST4, page 30 of the Supplementary T documents.
Associate Professor Mendelson
Associate Professor Mendelson prepared a fairly lengthy report.[32] It was prepared after he was furnished with an array of documentation concerning the applicant. He took a history of the symptom onset from the applicant, which included references to Dale and Jackson. There was also a section devoted to the applicant’s current symptoms.
[32] See ST7, commencing at page 51 of the Supplementary T documents.
He made his assessment based upon the history given to him by the applicant, the contemporaneous clinical records that he received from Dr Riahifard and Dr Marhoon, and a report prepared by Dr Sheehan who examined the applicant on 13 December 2018. He opined that the most likely diagnosis of the applicant’s emotional state in early 2018 shortly after she returned from the island of Nauru, to the extent that she might have had work-related emotional symptoms, was that of an adjustment disorder: mixed anxiety and depressive reaction (ICD Code F 43.22) using the nomenclature of the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders.[33] To the extent that the condition, in February to March 2018, had been work-related, in his opinion the relevant contributing factors would have been the applicant having formed the view that she had been bullied and discriminated against by her colleagues and by management while she was on Nauru, having to deal with the complaints that had been made against her and, as she expressed to Dr Marhoon on 1 March 2018, that she lost her job.
[33] See ST7, page 71 of the Supplementary T documents.
Associate Professor Mendelson observed that when the applicant was examined by Dr Turnbull on 4 July 2019, she had “major depressive disorder with significant anxiety”. He went on to say that, while it could have been that with the passage of time and ongoing involvement in litigation there have been transient exacerbations of the applicant’s emotional symptoms, in his opinion at the time of his examination of her on 29 January 2020 she did not present as having a major depressive disorder. He observed that there was clearly a clinically significant difference between Dr Turnbull’s observations on a mental status examination at the assessment on 4 July 2019, when the applicant broke down during the assessment into unremitting tears and it became difficult for her to then participate in a psychiatric interview, and her presentation before him on 29 January 2020, when she did become emotionally distressed at times but was able to provide him with a coherent history to complete the examination. He concluded that the applicant’s current emotional state is outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour.
Associate Professor Mendelson opined that the applicant’s prognosis is good, but he did not anticipate that she will acknowledge sustained significant improvement until all litigation has been finalised. In his view, there is no psychiatric impediment to the applicant eventually resuming full-time work as an interpreter or translator, if she wishes to do so. However, he does not expect this to be until after all litigation in relation to her claim has been finalised.
With reference to the question of permanent impairment, Associate Professor Mendelson expressed the opinion that the applicant does not have a permanent psychiatric impairment.[34]
[34] See ST7, page 73 of the Supplementary T documents
CONCLUSIONS ON THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE

In terms of the diagnosis of her condition, the Tribunal prefers the opinion expressed by Associate Professor Mendelson that the applicant suffers from an adjustment disorder: mixed anxiety and depressive reaction. It does so for several reasons. The report prepared by Associate Professor Mendelson is detailed and contains an extensive patient history which lays the foundation for his opinion as expressed. There is also the reference to the ICD-10 Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders which he enclosed with his report. Additionally, his reasoning process is laid out in the report with an explanation as to why he reaches a different conclusion to that of Dr Turnbull. Also, it should be observed that Associate Professor Mendelson’s opinion is the same as or similar to that expressed by Dr Abbott, who it should be recalled saw the applicant in 2017.
On the question of impairment, the Tribunal prefers the evidence of Dr Turnbull. He found that for the foreseeable future the applicant is likely to remain significantly psychiatrically impaired. He also considered the contents of the Guide and the matters that need to be considered. He concluded that there are, in the case of the applicant, significant reactions to stressors of daily living.
The Tribunal also agrees with the contention of the applicant that Dr Turnbull, in re-examination, focused on the criteria of the Guide that the manifestations of recurrent ruminations and stressful and intrusive memories of the events in Nauru with tearfulness was, at the very least, a minor distortion of thinking and that the activities of daily living such as moving out of the house on her own, driving and engaging in social contact without doing so in company, met the criteria of “reactions to stresses of daily living with minor loss of personal/social efficiency”.
Associate Professor Mendelson, in cross-examination, was asked about the loss of personal and social efficiency. He agreed that the applicant’s inability to move outside the home without being in company was an example of loss that met the criteria.
The Tribunal must refer to the question of when the applicant’s injury manifested itself. The preponderance of the medical evidence indicates that it first appeared after the applicant’s interactions with Dale. Dr Turnbull specifically referred to the fact that the account he received was that the applicant’s psychiatric health declined during and after her interactions with Dale, and then with Jackson. As noted earlier, the Tribunal is satisfied that when she consulted Dr Marhoon, on 3 November 2016, she suffered from a diagnosable psychiatric condition which, as noted earlier, had been caused to a significant degree by the interactions that the applicant had with Dale.
Associate Professor Mendelson did not specifically identify in his report when the applicant’s adjustment disorder: mixed anxiety and depressive reaction, first manifested itself. He observed that it was certainly present when Dr Sheehan examined the applicant on 13 December 2018. He also recorded the interaction that the applicant had with Dr Marhoon, on 3 November 2016, where it was recorded that the applicant was showing symptoms of anxiety and stress. He noted that Dr Marhoon also recorded that the applicant always felt anxious; worried a lot; complained of tiredness; panic attacks; insomnia; low and depressed mood; poor concentration and memory and had started seeing a psychologist. She was then prescribed “Pristiq” tablets by Dr Marhoon, which Associate Professor Mendelson described as an antidepressant that also has some anxiolytic activity. This observation is consistent with that of Dr Turnbull that the applicant’s psychiatric health had declined during and after her interactions with Dale. Certainly, it is consistent with a decline in her psychiatric health occurring as a result of her experiences on Nauru in October 2016, as she described them.
REASONABLE ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
The respondent contended that any psychological condition the applicant purportedly suffered during, or as a consequence of, her deployment to Nauru in 2016 had resolved.[35] The Tribunal does not accept this contention. It refers to the conclusions on the medical evidence above as to the date upon which the condition first manifested itself. It should also be noted that save for the report of Dr Sheehan, who did not give evidence, no other medical practitioner whose evidence was before the Tribunal went so far as to say that any condition suffered as a consequence of her deployment to Nauru in 2016 had resolved itself. The evidence of Dr Turnbull revealed that the condition continued. As he put it in his report, there was a temporary but probably incomplete remission of her symptoms between deployments. This opinion was not challenged when he was in the witness box. The clinical notes and the report of Dr Marhoon also support this finding, that the applicant continued to suffer from a diagnosed psychiatric disorder from 2016 through to 2018, when he prepared his report.[36] He did not suggest that the condition had resolved itself. Furthermore, it was not suggested to the applicant, Dr Turnbull, or Associate Professor Mendelson when they were in the witness box, that the condition had resolved itself, as now contended by the respondent. Dr Sheehan’s opinion that the applicant’s condition resolved sometime in 2017 was not put to either Dr Turnbull or Associate Professor Mendelson, when they were in the witness box giving evidence.
[35] Paragraph 8.1 of the respondent's submissions dated 11 April 2022 is referred to.
[36] The Tribunal observes that Dr Marhoon did not give evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing of this application.
The respondent did not advance an argument in its closing submissions that the applicant’s interactions with Dale, which have been recounted earlier in these reasons, constituted reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner within the meaning of section 5A of the Act. By reason of this fact alone given the respondent’s concessions that the applicant suffers from the claimed condition which is outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning as noted earlier, the respondent is liable to the applicant. It did, in its Statement of Facts, Issues and Contentions, dated 16 October 2020, assert that the meeting held on October 2016 constituted reasonable counselling action taken in respect of the applicant’s employment for the purposes of section 5A(2)(b) of the Act.
The applicant has contended that there was no administrative action in the alleged counselling by Dale at the meeting on 17 October 2016.
In support of this contention, the applicant points to several matters. She highlights that there is no evidence to support the assertion that the meeting was in fact a counselling session. Indeed, Dale’s statement did not assert that it was a counselling session, or any counselling took place. What Dale says is that the meeting was to discuss feedback that had been received from the ABF officers regarding their experiences with the applicant. Further, her statement was limited to noting that the ABF officers had requested that the applicant not be reassigned to them in future dealings with refugees or asylum seekers. There was also reference to the fact the applicant was not to approach stakeholders to provide feedback as she had done with a senior medical officer and she was required to show up for her appointments on time. The applicant contends that no conclusion was reached as to those requests.
Another matter relied upon by the applicant to assert that no counselling took place in the meeting on 17 October 2016 was that, in cross-examination, Dale said she was not taking a concluded view upon which action could be taken by the employer. She had no direct supervisory authority over the applicant and was only a liaison officer, not a manager. She had also not undertaken any real investigation of the allegations that were made during the meeting.
It is notable that Myers did not suggest in her evidence that there was counselling of the applicant.
The applicant also contended that there was no rule, or identifiable written standard of conduct, against which the applicant’s behaviour could be measured or otherwise assessed. There was no provision of any written basis for the feedback relied upon by Dale, even though the applicant had requested it as early as 13 October 2016.[37]
[37] The request was contained in an email from the applicant to Dale on that day – it is attachment SD1 to Dale's statement.
Following the meeting on 17 October 2016, the applicant emailed Dale recording, amongst other things, a version of what occurred at the meeting.[38] There was no reference to any counselling, and only a repetition of the fact that there had been feedback provided by Dale to the applicant on 13 October 2016. That feedback was that an ABF officer by the name of Imrana had reported that the applicant did not look at her when she provided an interpreting session. The applicant gave evidence, which is accepted by the Tribunal, that she had only ever interpreted for Imrana on one occasion. Dale had no recollection of this email and it was not exhibited to her statement. The Tribunal prefers the contents of the email of 13 October 2016 as being the most accurate account of what occurred at that meeting, as it was a contemporaneous record made while the events were relatively fresh in the applicant’s mind.
[38] The email was exhibit A3.
Dale sent an email to Myers on 19 October 2016 reporting on the meeting. In that email, she stated that the purpose of the conversation was to provide feedback received from two ABF officers.[39] She did not suggest in that email that in fact the purpose of any meeting or contact she had had with the applicant was for counselling. Had the meeting of 17 October 2016 been a genuine counselling meeting, one would have expected Dale to have said so when reporting to her superior. The Tribunal concludes that the reason she did not say that it was a counselling session was because it was not.
[39] See T9, page 319 of the T documents.
The Tribunal considers that the assertions that the applicant was repeatedly late for the bus were at best only feedback and did not constitute counselling, let alone counselling in a reasonable manner. The Tribunal finds that no specific allegation was ever put to the applicant about punctuality with respect to transport, which might be responded to in a definite or proper way. It should also be noted that, in cross-examination, Dale admitted in the report contained in her email dated 17 October 2016 that on one occasion on 29 September 2016, she called the applicant to ask of her whereabouts because the driver had been waiting for her. It was not a matter put to the applicant on the date of the alleged counselling at the meeting on 17 October 2016 but merely included in the subsequent report on 19 October 2016 concerning that meeting to Myers. The Tribunal does not find this particularly satisfactory and is a further reason why it prefers the contents of the email sent on 19 October 2016 by the applicant to Dale.
The respondent contends that the meeting of 5 December 2017, details of which have been recounted earlier, fit clearly within the ambit of the exclusion provision, and compensation is not payable to the applicant. It is submitted that it was a reasonable action to take and was undertaken in a reasonable manner in all the circumstances.[40]
[40] Paragraph 4.11 of the respondent’s statement of facts, issues and contentions dated 21 August 2020.
The basis of asserting that it was reasonable counselling action was a suggestion that the applicant had spoken aggressively on 3 December 2017 to an interpreter, Reza Gillany, in several languages.[41] There was no evidence before the Tribunal that this had in fact occurred. The only evidence given on the topic was that of the applicant, who stated in that she politely enquired as to the level of certification of Gillany as a Farsi interpreter. All he told her was that he was not a Level 3 interpreter. The Tribunal accepts this evidence from the applicant.
[41] Paragraph 4.10 of the respondent’s statement of facts, issues and contentions dated 21 August 2020.
The applicant was told on 5 December 2017, at the meeting with Jackson and Lai, that Gillany had made a complaint. She then gave her version of the events to them and followed that up with an email on 7 December 2017. A report in the same form was forwarded on 14 December 2017 by the applicant to Myers.[42]
[42] See attachments to the statement of Meyers, marked as NM-21.
The applicant contends, and the Tribunal agrees, that no counselling, in the relevant sense, took place on 5 December 2017. This is borne out by a number of sources.
At the meeting, Jackson explained that TIS would be notified and that he would require a written statement from the applicant regarding the incident.[43] The applicant subsequently did provide a written statement in the form of an email on 7 December 2017 to Jackson as requested.[44] It was consistent with the evidence that she gave to the Tribunal at the hearing of this application concerning the exchange she had with Gillany.
[43] This is recorded in the email from Jackson which is attachment NM-18 to the statement of Myers.
[44] See T9, page 335 of the T documents.
It should be borne in mind that Gillany did not give any evidence at the hearing of the application which contradicted the version of events given by the applicant; which as the Tribunal noted earlier, it has accepted.
Jackson, in cross-examination, gave evidence to the effect that no counselling occurred on 5 December 2017 as the matter was being investigated.
Any basis for counselling has not been supported by an evidentiary foundation or platform. No evidence has been called by the respondent that justified that counselling occurred. No evidence of actual counselling was given by any witness called to give evidence. Indeed, the applicant received a letter on 14 December 2017 from Alison Thorne, Manager Interpreter Liaison and IIMA Services TIS National, to which Myers referred.[45] An examination of that letter reveals that the matters were to be referred to a third party for a formal investigation. There is no finding of any misconduct, and no reference to any counselling having taken place. One would have expected a reference to counselling to have been made in that letter, had any counselling occurred, or had the Department considered that the meeting on 5 December 2017 in fact constituted counselling. It is telling that it did not do so. It is also important to note that the letter did not articulate any allegation of wrongdoing against the applicant. It seems to the Tribunal that if the matter was still being investigated, it simply would not have been possible to properly have engaged in a process of meaningful counselling in any event.
[45] See T3, page 83 of the T documents.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it should be noted that there was a bona fide reason for the applicant making the enquiry she did of Gillany. There was a policy adopted by TIS of deploying single language interpreters with the highest level of qualification in the case of Farsi Level 3. Myers, in cross-examination, gave evidence that this was in part due to health and safety considerations to prevent interpreter burnout. In one of her attachments, there was an email from Thorne dated 11 January 2018 to Victoria McLeod, which stated that if interpreters were deployed based upon multiple languages listed it distorts how interpreters are allocated.[46] It went on to say this could lead to work not being allocated fairly and a small number of interpreters being repeatedly deployed and potentially burning out. The applicant contends that this was a valid reason for her enquiry, with which the Tribunal agrees. There is just no evidence of any bullying or harassment in the making of such enquiry and no witness was called to contradict evidence of the applicant, which as noted earlier has been accepted by the Tribunal.
[46] See T9, page 316 of the T documents.
For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that the meeting on 5 December 2017 did not constitute reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.
IMPAIRMENT
The respondent relies upon the evidence of Associate Professor Mendelson, who stated that the applicant has not suffered a permanent impairment for the purposes of section 24 and section 27 of the Act. It also relies upon the oral evidence of Dr Turnbull.
It should be noted that Dr Turnbull was recalled to give evidence following the recall of the applicant. The applicant was recalled because it had come to the respondent’s attention that she had given a radio interview concerning her filmmaking ventures. There were aspects of the radio interview that were inconsistent with other known facts. This was particularly with respect to the time that she had spent in Afghanistan.
Discussion of the applicant’s filmmaking ventures occupied considerable time in the course of the hearing. It should be observed that the applicant has graduate qualifications in filmmaking. She produced a “gorilla film” called “Where pomegranates Howl”. Amongst other things she said that she had, with respect to the film, procured finance from the Adelaide Film Festival and from the South Australian Film Corporation; was the sole director of the film which was made mostly in 2019; had assistance from a producer but directed all the production crew assisting; and had undertaken preliminary work on the production in Afghanistan, which included talking to locals, speaking with people and filming these surrounds. Further features of her involvement in the film included:
(a)Establishing a network and meeting with new people, and numerous discussions with people concerning the production of the film;
(b)Travelling as a passenger to two other provinces in Afghanistan,
(c)Spending two years scouting for street kids to act in her film (she said she did so always in the company of at least one person);
(d)Being involved in group activities involving 20 or so people;
(e)Having a significant personal involvement in the film, which was very much her creation; and
(f)Being able to effectively communicate with the people assisting her in producing the film.
With respect to the period from January 2018 to October 2019, the applicant gave evidence that she had a lot of ups and downs and continued to take anti-anxiety medication. She readily conceded, however, that these factors had not prevented her from travelling to Afghanistan on several occasions to organise the film.
Concerning her loss of concentration, in cross-examination, she conceded that working with and directing non-actors including children and adults in a foreign land took considerable effort, concentration and determination. However, she stated that she had significant support while she was undertaking these tasks.
In response to further questions in cross-examination, with respect to activities of daily living in Australia and overseas, she said she had no difficulties with:
(a)Showering or eating;
(b)Writing, reading, hearing or speaking;
(c)Physical activities (walking, bending, standing);
(d)Feeling in her hands;
(e)Travelling, noting that she had travelled to Afghanistan on no less than three occasions in the relevant period; and
(f)Had continued with poetry and writing.
The applicant also gave evidence that she had bad days in Afghanistan, when she would be unable to get out of bed due to her negative thoughts; but she had more bad days in Melbourne than Afghanistan.
Dr Turnbull, when first cross-examined, readily conceded that the applicant’s filmmaking activities were not part of the history that he was provided with. When it was explained to him some of the things that she had done with respect to the film, he also conceded that if done at that level, the impairment would be more likely to be 5%. He said that it was a factual thing, if what was put to him was correct, and the applicant performed well, in his opinion 5% would be the applicable level of impairment.[47]
[47] Dr Turnbull's evidence at pages 499-500 of the transcript is referred to.

Dr Turnbull, on recall in evidence in chief, had put to him details of the applicant’s filmmaking activities. He was asked how he would describe her continuing impairment. His response was that assuming she was honest in what she described to him, and those symptoms were present when he saw her, they were likely to persist for some time into the foreseeable future. He said he could not give a timeline when they may dissipate and in his view they would continue. Unless there was any other, as he put it, “news”, he considered that the level of impairment was 10%.
In cross-examination, details of the applicant’s filmmaking activities were carefully put to Dr Turnbull. His response was that he had been “thrust” with the news that she had done the film, he was therefore open to whether the impairment was 5% or 10%, and did not have a strong opinion.
When re-examined, Dr Turnbull stated that looking at the 10% impairment contained in the Guide, minor distortions of thinking include ruminations. He said that when he saw the applicant, she was in tears in the waiting room.
The Tribunal considers that when one realistically looks at the range of activities that were undertaken by the applicant to produce and direct the film “Where pomegranates howl”, her range of permanent impairment must be limited. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is impaired. Her evidence that she has bad days is accepted and was not seriously challenged. All the doctors that examined her reached the conclusion that she has developed a diagnosable psychiatric condition. The Tribunal is persuaded by the candid concession made by Dr Turnbull when he was in the witness box that he did not have a strong opinion as to whether her impairment was 5% or 10%.
The Tribunal considers that when one examines the description of level of impairment contained in the Guide for 10%, despite the presence of more than one of the factors referred to therein, the applicant is capable of performing activities of daily living without supervision or assistance. Those factors are reactions to stressors of daily living with minor loss of personal or social efficiency and minor distortions of thinking. Therefore, the Tribunal concludes that the level of impairment of the applicant is 10%.
CONCLUSION AND ORDERS
By reason of the foregoing matters, the Tribunal makes the following orders:
(a)In application number 2019/2210, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 12 March 2019.
(b)In application number 2019/8215, the Tribunal sets aside the reviewable decision of 9 December 2019.
(c)In substitution of those decisions, the Tribunal decides:
(i)The applicant suffered incapacity and impairment as a result of an injury identified as an adjustment disorder: mixed anxiety and depressive reaction to which employment with the Department of Home Affairs contributed to a significant degree, which was the subject of a claim for compensation dated 17 September 2018, and which gives rise to entitlement to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the Act;
(ii)As a result of the injury, the applicant suffers from impairment that is likely to continue indefinitely and which is assessed to be at least 10% according to Table 5.1 of the approved Comcare Guide (Edition 2.1) and entitles her to:
(1)Lump sum compensation pursuant to section 24 of the Act; and
(2)Further lump sum compensation pursuant to section 27 of the Act in respect of non-economic loss, assessed in accordance with her answers to the relevant assessment form submitted with the claim.
(iii)The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs and disbursements in respect of this application pursuant to section 67 of the Act.

I certify that the preceding 109 (one hundred and nine) paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of R Cameron, Senior Member

.....[sgd].............................................
Associate
Dated: 1 September 2022

Dates of hearing:

15 - 18, 29 - 30 June, 1 - 2 July 2021 & 21 – 25, 28 February 2022

Counsel for the Applicant:

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mark Carey

Angela Sdrinis Legal

John Wallace

Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore

[2022] AATA 2838

1 September 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Employment Law

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Causation

Remedies

Statutory Construction

Appeal

Procedural Fairness

Costs