Purse v Workers' Compensation Regulator - [2025] QIRC 299

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

CITATION:	Purse v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 299
PARTIES:	Purse, Adam (Appellant) v Workers' Compensation Regulator (Respondent)
CASE NO:	WC/2023/22
PROCEEDING:	Appeal against decision of Workers' Compensation Regulator
DELIVERED ON:	5 November 2025
HEARING DATES:	19 March 2024 20 March 2024 21 March 2024
SUBMISSIONS:	Appellant's closing submissions: 3 June 2024 Respondent's closing submissions: 13 June 2024 Appellant's closing submissions in reply: 1 July 2024
MEMBER:	Power IC
HEARD AT:	Toowoomba
ORDERS:	1. The appeal is upheld. 2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is set aside. 3. Failing agreement on costs, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission within 28 days.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS' COMPENSATION – ENTITLEMENT TO COMPENSATION – psychiatric or psychological injury – whether allegations substantiated – whether injury arises from management action – whether injury excluded under s 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) – appeal upheld.
LEGISLATION:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld), s 32
CASES:	Davis v Blackwood [2014] ICQ 009 Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8, 101 CLR 298 MacDonald v Q-COMP (No. 2) [2008] ICQ 20 McGrory v Medina Property Services Pty Ltd [2017] QCA 234 Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes (NSW) Pty Ltd [2008] NSWCA 246 Qantas Airways Limited v Q-COMP [2006] QIRC 31 Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) v Mahaffey [2016] ICQ 010 State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2020] QIRC 097 Taylor v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2017] QIRC 6 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Langerak [2020] ICQ 2
APPEARANCES:	Mr C. Watters of Counsel instructed by Work Rights Australia Ms L. Willson of Counsel directly instructed by the Respondent

Reasons for Decision

Mr Adam Purse ('the Appellant') appeals a decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator ('the Respondent') to reject his application for compensation in relation to an injury pursuant to s 32 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) ('the Act').
The Appellant claims that he suffered a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of his employment at the Toowoomba Regional Council ('TRC') to which his employment was a significant contributing factor.

Issue for determination

The issue to be determined is whether the Appellant suffered a personal injury within the meaning of s 32 of the Act. Section 32 of the Act provides:

32 Meaning of injury

(1)An injury is personal injury arising out of, or in the course of, employment if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the injury.
(2)However, employment need not be a contributing factor to the injury if section 34(2) or 35(2)applies.
(3)Injury includes the following—
(a)a disease contracted in the course of employment, whether at or away from the place of employment, if the employment is a significant contributing factor to the disease;
(b)an aggravation of the following, if the aggravation arises out of, or in the course of, employment and the employment is a significant contributing factor to the aggravation—
(i)a personal injury;
(ii)a disease;

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 Purse v Workers' Compensation Regulator

Details

AGLC: Purse v Workers' Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 299
Case: [2025] QIRC 299
Decision Date: 5 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Purse v Workers' Compensation Regulator, the court addressed the entitlement of the appellant, Purse, to workers' compensation for a psychological injury sustained during his employment. The dispute centred on whether the psychological injury arose from reasonable management action, as defined in section 32(5) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). The Workers' Compensation Regulator had previously determined that the injury did arise from such management action and thus was not compensable. The appellant appealed this decision, arguing that the injury was not a result of reasonable management action.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the psychological injury suffered by Purse was excluded from compensation under section 32(5) of the Act because it arose from reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. This required the court to examine the specific stressors that contributed to the injury and determine if any of these were related to management actions. The court had to consider the evidence provided by medical experts and other witnesses, and assess if the management actions taken by the employer were reasonable under the circumstances.

The court found that while some of the stressors contributing to Purse's psychological injury were indeed related to management actions, not all of them were. The court identified that the stressors which did not involve management action were consistent with the diagnosis of workplace bullying. The court held that the reasonable management action provision in section 32(5) did not apply to all the substantiated stressors, and thus the injury was not entirely excluded from compensation. The appeal was upheld, the decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator was set aside, and the matter was remitted for further consideration of compensation. Costs were to be determined in a subsequent application unless the parties agreed otherwise.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is upheld.

2. The decision of the Workers' Compensation Regulator is set aside.

3. Failing agreement on costs, to be the subject of a further application to the Commission within 28 days.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

I accept the Respondent's submission that this is a factual assertion and not a stressor.Consideration The decision before the Commission is whether the Appellant has suffered an injury in accordance with s 32 of the Act. The Respondent concedes that the Appellant is a worker and has sustained a personal injury in the form of a psychological condition. Further, the Respondent accepts that it is open to the Commission to find that the Appellant's injury arose out of employment in circumstances where employment was a significant contributing factor.[75] [75] The written submissions of the Respondent filed on 13 June 2024, para. 53. The medical evidence of Dr Butler and Mr Harvey support a finding that the Appellant suffered a psychological injury arising out of his employment and that his employment was a significant contributing factor to his injury. The date of injury is 26 November 2021 as outlined in [24] and accordingly I do not consider that the evidence regarding the Appellant's Application for a Stop Bullying Order against Mr Williamson filed in November 2022 to be relevant on the basis that it post-dates the onset of the injury. The Respondent contends that s 32(5) operates to exclude the injury on the basis that it arose from reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way. The Appellant bears the onus of demonstrating that the injury is not excluded by reasonable management action provisions in s 32(5) of the WCR Act. Did the injury arise out of reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way? As outlined above, I am satisfied based on the evidence before the Commission that the following stressors are substantiated:·2(e)·2(f)·2(h) partially substantiated·2(i) partially substantiated·2(j)·2(o)·2(q)·2(r) partially substantiated ·2(s) Of the above, the following stressors did not arise out of management action – 2(e), 2(f), 2(h), 2(i), 2(j), 2(o) and 2(q). These stressors are broadly consistent with the medical evidence that the Appellant's injury was caused by 'workplace bullying'. I note that the letter from TRC advised the Appellant that the Mapien investigation had not substantiated his grievance regarding bullying by Mr Williamson. In circumstances where the Mapien investigation report was not in evidence I cannot make any findings regarding that investigation. The stressors have been substantiated on the basis of evidence given at hearing. The substantiated stressors relate to adverse interactions between the Appellant and Mr Williamson. I am satisfied that these stressors occurred and that the Appellant reasonably perceived these interactions as bullying by Mr Williamson. In State of Queensland (Department of Agriculture and Fisheries) v Workers' Compensation Regulator Deputy President Merrell determined that when an employer performs a specific action or actions concerning a specific issue with an employee, it is likely to have the characteristics of management action.[76] [76] [2020] QIRC 097. I am satisfied that out of the above stressors, only stressors 2(r) and 2(s) relate to management action.