TQJY and Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Compensation) - [2025] ARTA 2313

TQJY and Commonwealth Bank of Australia (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 2313 (31 October 2025)
Applicant/s:  TQJY
Respondent:  Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Tribunal Number:                2022/10496, 2024/0795

Tribunal:General Member Dinnen
Place:Sydney
Date: 31 October 2025

Decision:The Tribunal affirms the Respondent’s reviewable decisions of 14 December 2022 (2022/10496) and 10 October 2023 (2024/0795).

................[Sgnd]............................................
General Member D Dinnen
Catchwords
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW – Compensation – Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 – psychiatric condition – injury – whether injury excluded under s 5A(1) – reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner – allegations of bullying – date of injury – manifestation of symptoms – Mooi condition – concurrent proceedings in Fair Work Commission – causal connection between psychiatric condition and workplace incidents – liability – permanent impairment – non economic loss
Legislation
Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024
Fair Work Act 2009
Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988
Cases
Australian Telecommunications Commission v Tzikas (1985) 5 AAR 173
Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43; (2016) 258 CLR 467
Comcare v Mooi [1996] FCA 1587; (1996) 69 FCR 439
Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16
Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth of Australia (1985) 62 ALR 533
Ms W (a pseudonym) [2022] FWC 1627
Nguyen v Comcare [2018] AATA 1623
Re Hutchinson and Comcare [2018] AATA 4357
Terbizan v Comcare [2018] AAT 3862
Statement of Reasons

TQJY (the Applicant) commenced employment with the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (the Respondent) on 30 September 2020 in the position of a payroll analyst. On 6 August 2021 the Applicant lodged a Stop Bullying application with the Fair Work Commission, alleging that her manager, Ms R, was bullying her. The Fair Work Commission dismissed that application on 28 June 2022: Ms W (a pseudonym) [2022] FWC 1627. The Applicant ceased work on sick leave on 22 July 2022 and on 8 August 2022 made a claim for compensation under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act) for “anxiety and depression”, stating the injury occurred due to “workplace bullying”.
On 6 October 2022 the Respondent denied liability under s 14 of the SRC Act for “Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood” on the basis that the Applicant’s injury had arisen as a result of reasonable administrative action undertaken in a reasonable manner with respect to her employment. The Applicant sought reconsideration on 16 November 2022, but did not identify any basis for why the 6 October 2022 decision was incorrect, and did not provide any additional information or evidence. On 14 December 2022 the Respondent affirmed the decision of 6 October 2022, finding that the Applicant’s injury was excluded under s 5A(1) of the SRC Act (the Reviewable Decision).
On 15 December 2022 the Applicant made an application to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for review of the Reviewable Decision (2022/10496).
On 11 August 2023 the Applicant made a claim for permanent impairment and non-economic loss pursuant to ss 24 and 27 of the SRC Act. On 10 October 2023 the Respondent decided the Applicant had no entitlement pursuant to ss 24 and 27 of the SRC Act because there was no compensable injury, on the basis that liability was declined pursuant to s 14 of the SRC Act.
The Applicant sought reconsideration of the Respondent’s decision of 10 October 2023 on 27 October 2023. On 24 November 2023 the Respondent affirmed the decision of 10 October 2023 (the 2023 Reviewable Decision). On 7 February 2024 the Applicant made an application to the AAT for review of the 2023 Reviewable Decision (2024/0795).
For the reasons that follow, the Reviewable Decision and the 2023 Reviewable Decision are affirmed.
Procedural issues
The Applicant sought an order pursuant to s 70(1)(a)(i) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (ART Act) to anonymise herself in these reasons for decision. She provided evidence from her treating practitioners of the effect that disclosure and publication of her name in publicly accessible reasons would have a significant negative impact on her mental health. The same reasons were given for seeking anonymisation orders in the Fair Work Commission proceedings, which were granted. In my view, taking into account the considerations outlined in s 71 of the ART Act, it is appropriate for the Applicant’s name and the names of the Respondent’s employees to be anonymised in these reasons for decision, which will be publicly accessible. I have therefore referred to the Applicant, where necessary, as ‘TQJY’, and her various managers as Ms R, Mr S and Ms L.
References to ‘T-Documents’ are references to documents lodged with the Tribunal by the Respondent pursuant to s 37 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (AAT Act), in operation when the applications commenced.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024, proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES
Section 14 of the SRC Act provides:
Compensation for injuries
(1) Subject to this Part, Comcare is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.
(2) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is intentionally self - inflicted.
(3) Compensation is not payable in respect of an injury that is caused by the serious and wilful misconduct of the employee but is not intentionally self - inflicted, unless the injury results in death, or serious and permanent impairment.
Section 5A(1) of the SRC Act contains an exclusion from the definition of “disease”, “injury” or “aggravation” for “reasonable administrative action”:
Definition of injury
(1) In this Act:
"injury" means:
(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or
(b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or
(c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment;
but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) and without limiting that subsection, reasonable administrative action is taken to include the following:
(a) a reasonable appraisal of the employee's performance;
(b) a reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee's employment;
(c) a reasonable suspension action in respect of the employee's employment;
(d) a reasonable disciplinary action (whether formal or informal) taken in respect of the employee's employment;
(e) anything reasonable done in connection with an action mentioned in paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d);
(f) anything reasonable done in connection with the employee's failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit, or to retain a benefit, in connection with his or her employment.
In Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43; (2016) 258 CLR 467 (Comcare v Martin), the High Court clarified the circumstances in which the exclusion at s 5A(1) could apply and set out the necessary causal connection considerations. At 480 [47] per French CJ, Bell, Gageler, Keane and Nettle JJ:
…what is required to meet the causal connection connoted by the exclusionary phrase in s 5A(1) in its application to a disease within s 5A(1)(a) is therefore that the employee would not have suffered that disease, as defined by s 5B(1), if the administrative action had not been taken. That is to say, the causal connection is met if, without the taking of the administrative action, the employee would not have suffered the ailment or aggravation that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment.’
Consideration of whether administrative action was ‘reasonable’ does not require consideration of whether such action could have been undertaken differently, or in a better manner. It only requires that such action was reasonable in the circumstances: see Nguyen v Comcare [2018] AATA 1623 and Terbizan v Comcare [2018] AAT 3862.
A reasonable administrative action does not need to be the sole cause of an injury for the exclusion to apply: see Hart v Comcare [2005] FCAFC 16 as confirmed by the High Court in Comcare v Martin.
A psychological or psychiatric condition can only be compensable as an ‘injury’ within the meaning of the SRC Act where it is a ‘condition that is outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour’, that is a ‘clinically significant’ condition’: Comcare v Mooi [1996] FCA 1587; (1996) 69 FCR 439 (Mooi). Such a condition has commonly become known as a ‘Mooi condition’. It is not necessary that the condition be identified with the label of a recognised medical condition: Mooi at 443-444 per Drummond J.
Section 24 of the SRC Act provides for compensation to an employee for permanent impairment in respect of a compensable injury. Section 27 of the SRC Act provides for compensation to an employee for non-economic loss in respect of a permanent impairment injury under s 24 of the SRC Act. Section 27 is dependent on a finding pursuant to s 24, and s 24 is dependent on a finding pursuant to s 14 of the SRC Act.
THE EVIDENCE
The Tribunal was provided with the following evidence:
(a)T-Documents dated 7 February 2023;
(b)Supplementary T-Documents dated 31 January 2025;
(c)Amended Supplementary T-Documents dated 25 July 2025;
(d)Joint Hearing Book dated 25 July 2025 (Exhibit 1);
(e)Medical report of Dr Barrett dated 7 June 2024 (Exhibit 2);
(f)Applicant’s Statement of Events dated 8 August 2022 (Exhibit 3);
(g)“Industry Standard of BW Ops Task” by the Applicant (Exhibit 4);
(h)Terms of Settlement between the Applicant and Advance Delivery Consulting Pty Ltd dated 19 December 2019 (Exhibit 5);
(i)Clinical records of Hornsby Medical Centre (Exhibit 6);
(j)Letter from Dr Mouawad dated 20 June 2025 (Exhibit 7);
(k)Report from Dr Hall to Dr Mouawad dated 25 June 2025 (Exhibit 8);
(l)LinkedIn profile extract of Ms R (Exhibit 9);
(m)Bundle of emails dating between 13 May and 27 May 2021 produced by Mr S as at hearing (Exhibit 10).
Contained within the T-Documents (and supplementary and amended supplementary T-Documents) were the following statements:
(n)Fair Work Commission Statement of the Applicant dated 1 November 2021;
(o)Fair Work Commission Statement of Ms R dated 15 November 2021;
(p)Fair Work Commission Statement of Mr S dated 15 November 2021;
(q)Fair Work Commission Statement of Ms M dated 15 November 2021;
(r)Fair Work Commission Statement of the Applicant in Reply dated 22 November 2021;
(s)Statement of the Applicant dated 29 August 2022 obtained by Clarity Workplace Solutions;
(t)Statement of Mr S dated 22 September 2022 obtained by Clarity Workplace Solutions.
The Hearing Book contained the following evidence which was not otherwise provided in the T-Documents:
(a)Applicant’s filed evidence: Letter from C & M Lawyers to Dr. Christopher Canaris dated 11 May 2023; Independent Medical Report of Dr. Christopher Canaris dated 25 May 2023; Supplementary Report of Dr. Christopher Canaris dated 25 May 2023; Report of Dr. David Hall (Psychiatrist) dated 5 June 2024; Letter from C&M Lawyers re Out of pocket expenses dated 18 November 2024; Letter from C&M Lawyers –Further out of pocket expenses dated 20 November 2024.
(b)Respondent’s filed evidence: Briefing Letter to Dr. Melissa Barrett dated 26 July 2023; Briefing Letter to Dr. Melissa Barrett (PI) dated 17 August 2023; Report of Dr. Melissa Barrett (Psychiatrist) dated 29 November 2023; Briefing Letter to Dr. Melissa Barrett (PI) dated 27 May 2024; Report of Dr. Melissa Barrett dated 7 June 2024;
(c)Summonsed Records: Medical records Granville Family Medical Centre as at 26 April 2023; Medical records The Madison Medical Centre Hornsby as at 15 January 2025; Employment Records Department of Education as at 4 April 2024; Medical records Hornsby Station Medical Practice as at 15 January 2025; Medical records Leslie Spitz – Logic Lounge Psychology as at 15 January 2025; Medical records Edge Medical Centre Prospect as at 15 January 2025; Medical records Hornsby Mall Medical Centre as at 15 January 2025; Medical records Dr David Hall as at 13 February 2025.
Where the Applicant’s evidence contradicts the evidence of her treating medical practitioners, I have preferred the medical evidence. This is because none of the medical evidence was disputed by her at the hearing. None of the medical practitioners were called to give evidence or cross examined. When the Applicant’s evidence was tested, she appeared unable to recall the events she was being asked about and deferred instead to her written statements and the evidence she prepared, which was not contemporaneous.
Where the Applicant’s evidence contradicts the evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses, I have first relied on the contemporaneous documentary evidence such as emails, and have then preferred the evidence of Ms R and Mr S to the Applicant’s. This is because their evidence under cross-examination was consistent with their written statements and the contemporaneous documentary evidence such as emails, whereas the Applicant’s recall of events was, at times, inconsistent with the written evidence. I also found that the Applicant’s responses to questions demonstrated she was unwilling to accept any responsibility for the issues raised by the Respondent regarding her work performance, irrespective of the evidence which contradicted her own.
AGREED FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The following factual background was agreed between the parties:
(d)The Applicant commenced employment with the Respondent as a Payroll Analyst in the Governance and Assurance Team on 30 September 2020. She was initially assigned to work in the BOOT12 Team (Better Off Overall Test Team 12) for a period of about 7 weeks.
(e)On 16 November 2020 the Applicant was assigned to work in the Assurance Team, supervised by Ms R.
(f)In January 2021 the Applicant was assessed in an Interim Performance Review for FY21 (period 1 July 2020 to 31 December 2020).
(g)On 12 May 2021 the Applicant was assigned to the Bank West Ops Task by Ms R.
(h)On 13 May 2021 Ms R sent the Applicant and her team a meeting request with the subject “BW service ops calc cadence”. The meeting request was a bi-weekly request with the stated purpose: Purpose – to provide updated and clear any blockages associated with the BW service ops calculations so that the business can be communicated impact by 28^th May.
At the meeting, the Applicant raised her concern that she believed that she did not have all the relevant data required to complete the review task, because “historical payroll data” had not been provided. She also raised concerns about incomplete information and the task deadline.
Ms R responded to those concerns during the meeting.
(i)On 17 May 2021 the Applicant emailed Ms R a list of “the details of the information to confirm for the BW Ops Review”. On 18 May 2021 Ms R responded to the Applicant, copied into Mr S, with comments added to an attached excel spreadsheet, a list of abbreviations and their meanings, and identifying a sample of comments located in the roster for which “we need a decided approach”.
(j)On 26 May 2021 the Applicant had a meeting with Ms R. Ms R assigned Mr A, an Assurance Analyst in the Assurance team, to work with the Applicant. Ms R, the Applicant and Mr A had a conversation about Mr A assisting the Applicant with the BW Ops calculations. Ms R requested that the task be completed and sent to her for review by the following day.
(k)On 27 May 2021 Mr A provided Ms R with BW Ops calculations for review.
(l)On Friday 28 May 2021 the Applicant took sick leave. The Bankwest Ops Review task was finalised.
(m)In June 2021 Ms R assigned the “Bankwest Annual Leave Loading task” (LL task) to the Applicant, estimating that the task should take approximately one week.
(n)On 13 July 2021, the Applicant began homeschooling her daughter due to the COVID-19 lockdown. On 19 July 2021 the Applicant’s cousin in China died.
(o)On 20 July 2021 the Applicant informed Ms R that she wished to take leave. She initially asked about Pandemic Special Leave and when Ms R responded that she would have to “look into it”, the Applicant asked to take 2 days of RDO (Rostered Days Off) instead. Ms R approved that request and asked the Applicant to provide an update on the LL task before she logged off as “it’s been in train for 4 weeks”.
(p)On 21 and 22 July 2021 the Applicant was on RDO leave.
(q)On 23 July 2021 Ms R conducted the Applicant’s Performance and Feedback Review (PFR). The feedback given to the Applicant by Ms R was followed by a confirmation email on 26 July 2021 (the PFR email), which summarised the key concerns discussed at the meeting and suggestions for tracking progress and improvement.
(r)On 23 July 2021 Ms R emailed the Applicant regarding her leave request, asking the Applicant to propose a flexible working arrangement which would suit her circumstances. The Applicant provided her proposal via email on 26 July 2021, involving utilisation of her personal leave for ½ day each working day. This was approved by Ms R on 26 July 2021.
(s)On 27 July 2021 the Applicant responded to the PFR email with her comments.
(t)On 29 July 2021 Ms R invited the Applicant to a weekly meeting via Microsoft Teams commencing 4 August 2021. The meeting invitation stated the following:
Further to my email on Monday, this meeting will be the first of our weekly catch ups to go through performance and progress (i.e. this is what we call Informal Performance Management – we will discuss more about this next Wednesday).
I know you’re on flexible working hours these days so please let me know if this time doesn’t suit.
(u)On 3 August 2021 Ms R assigned the Applicant to the ‘Treasury/Teller One Allowance” task.
(v)On 4 August 2021 the Applicant attended the planned meeting with Ms R.
(w)On 6 August 2021 the Applicant had a meeting with Mr S, then filed a “Stop Bullying” application with the Fair Work Commission under s 789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009. The Applicant also attended a GP, Dr Krishnan.
(x)On 7 August 2021 Ms R sent the Applicant an email regarding the meeting of 4 August 2021 and commencement of informal performance management plan (IPMP).
(y)On 8 August 2021 the Applicant responded to the 7 August 2021 email, copied to Mr S, Sian Lewis (Respondent’s Group Executive Human Resources) and Matt Comyn (Respondent’s CEO), and informed Ms R that she had submitted a Stop Bullying application to the Fair Work Commission on 6 August 2021.
(z)On 10 August 2021 the Applicant’s reporting line was transferred from Ms R to Ms H, and an investigation into the Applicant’s bullying allegations was commenced by the Respondent.
(aa)On 31 August 2021 Mr S met with the Applicant and informed her that his investigation had concluded with a finding that there had been no bullying.
(bb)On 1 September 2021 the Applicant was informed via letter of the Respondent’s investigation findings into her bullying allegations, and that she would be moved back into Ms R’s reporting line. On 3 September the Applicant had a meeting with Mr S and a representative from Workplace Relations regarding her return to her substantive role, where the Applicant informed them she would appeal the outcome of Mr S’s review.
(cc)On 12 October 2021 the Respondent’s Workplace Grievance Manager concluded the review into Applicant’s grievances regarding Mr S’s conduct of the investigation and a complaint that Mr S had bullied and harassed the Applicant, and found the Applicant’s grievances unsubstantiated. The Applicant was informed via letter dated 12 October 2021, and Mr S was informed by email dated 18 October 2021. On 20 October 2021 Mr S provided the Applicant with a letter, as recommended by the Respondent’s Workplace Grievance Manager, providing some further detail in relation to his investigation and findings, and outlining the process by which the Applicant would be returned to her original role, reporting to Ms R. Despite this letter, the Applicant was not, in fact, returned to Ms R’s supervision at that time.
(dd)On 13 October 2021 directions were made in the Fair Work Commission to progress the Applicant’s Stop Bullying application to hearing, after months of discussions and conciliations attempting alternative dispute resolution.
(ee)The Fair Work Commission hearing took place in person on 7 December 2021.
(ff)The Fair Work Commission decision was published on 28 June 2022, dismissing the Applicant’s application on the basis of findings that Ms R had not engaged in any bullying of the Applicant.
(gg)On 14 July 2022 the Applicant had a meeting with Mr S where she was informed that she would be returning to her substantive position, reporting to Ms R, from 25 July 2022. This was confirmed in an email to the Applicant of 15 July 2022, noting the Applicant’s intention to respond by 22 July 2022.
(hh)From 18 July 2022 the Applicant was on annual leave.
(ii)On 20 July 2022 the Applicant was certified unfit for work by Dr Rahman due to “medical condition and symptoms” from 18 July 2022 to 29 July 2022. Dr Rahman was unwilling to manage a WorkCover claim. On 20 July 2022 the Applicant also attended Dr Wijayakumar.
(jj)On 26 July 2022 the Applicant attended Dr Mouawad for the purpose of making a workers compensation claim. Dr Mouawad completed a WorkCover NSW Certificate of capacity for the Applicant and certified her unfit for work from 26 July 2022 to 12 August 2022, noting the date of injury as 30 June 2022, and the nature of the injury as “suffering from anxiety and depression from reported workplace bullying”.
(kk)On 8 August 2022 the Applicant lodged her claim for workers compensation with the Respondent, stating “my recent date of injury was from 30 Jun[e], 2022” and her stated illness as “suffering from anxiety and depression from workplace bullying”.
(ll)The Applicant has not since returned to work.

The Applicant’s psychiatric condition was given varying diagnoses by the doctors who examined her:
(a)On 26 September 2022 Dr Gill diagnosed the Applicant with an Anxiety Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood;
(b)On 25 May 2023 Dr Canaris diagnosed the Applicant with an Adjustment Disorder with anxiety and depressed mood, but acknowledged that a differential diagnosis would be one of major Depressive disorder with anxious distress;
(c)On 29 November 2023 Dr Barrett diagnosed the Applicant with a Major Depressive Disorder and, whilst she maintained that diagnosis in a subsequent report dated 7 June 2024, she accepted in her initial report that “an Adjustment Disorder is a reasonable differential diagnosis”;
(d)On 25 June 2025 Dr Hall stated that he had diagnosed the Applicant with an Unspecified Trauma & Stress Related Disorder (UTRSD), Depression and Panic Disorder, but that the latter 2 conditions had resolved with treatment.
Despite the varying diagnoses, it is undisputed that the Applicant suffers from a psychiatric condition incorporating anxiety and depression. This psychiatric condition is an “injury” within the meaning of s 5A of the SRC Act.
It was also undisputed that the Applicant’s injury was contributed to, to a significant degree, by her employment with the Respondent.
DISPUTED FACTUAL MATTERS
A number of issues arise from the parties’ evidence of factual matters, which are not agreed.
The parties filed Statements of Facts, Issues and Contentions (SFICs) with the Tribunal, as directed. The Applicant’s SFIC was prepared by her former solicitors, who ceased representing her just prior to the originally listed hearing date in February 2025, which necessitated the adjournment of the hearing until the end of July and August 2025. Unfortunately, although the Applicant claimed to rely on the SFIC filed on her behalf, her closing submissions did not address how the evidence she referred to supported the contentions outlined in the SFIC.
The Applicant summarised the Respondent’s conduct which contributed to her psychiatric condition as:
         Inconsistent communications
         Poor management support
         Lack of policies and procedures
         High stress level of demand
         Management actions were taken in unreasonable grounds and manners
         Inconsistently implemented group policies
         Assigned tasks beyond and under my position description
         Treated me differently
More specifically, the Applicant alleged that her psychiatric condition was contributed to by the following workplace incidents and circumstances:
(a)“The BW Ops Task”: In May 2021, the Applicant raised concerns regarding the information provided to her for the purpose of completing the BW Ops task, which she believed was inadequate or incomplete. The Applicant alleges that Ms R:
…was not happy and rejected the concerns and support I needed. Her behaviours and altitudes towards me changed since them. My phone call and messages to her were ignored; she talked to me in humiliating voice in front of other team members; set unrealistic deadlines and micromanaged me. I was hurt and started suffering anxiety and depression.
(b)“The IPMP”: In July 2021, in the context of the Covid-19 lockdown and personal difficulties including the requirement to homeschool her child and the death of her cousin in China, the Applicant applied for leave. The Applicant alleges that despite leave being approved, Ms R and Mr S:
… were not happy and imposed an Informal Performance Program on me with no reasonable grounds. I suffered more serious symptoms of anxiety and depression. I felt hard to get into sleep, was worried and depressed all the time and was constantly coughing day and night.
(c)“The Easter Egg Incident”: In April 2022, during a team meeting, another team member brought in chocolate easter eggs which were shared by the team. The Applicant alleged that:
As the meeting table was quite large and team members hardly to reach the egg basket. [Mr S] was distributing the eggs to each of us. He started from his right-hand side. I was sitting the 3rd next to his right. He passed the eggs to the 1st and 2nd team members next to his right and he stopped. Then he restarted to distribute the eggs from his left-hand side. At the end, he did not pass the egg to me. Instead, he asked the team member sitting next to me to pass the egg to me. Everybody in the meeting room were watching and I felt badly humiliated.
(d)“Forced leave: In June 2022, the Applicant took 5 days annual leave. The Applicant alleged that Mr S forced her to take that leave, despite her annual leave balance being under 10 days and that she had planned to take her annual leave in July and December 2022.
(e)“Unfair delay criticism”: She believed that she was penalised and criticised for delayed completion of tasks, such as the BW Ops Task and Annual Leave Loading Task, when other individuals were not criticised for delays.
(f)“Work outside role”: Being assigned work below her “grade” and being assigned work outside the scope of her role, including being requested to chair a team meeting.
The Respondent submitted that the issues for determination by the Tribunal were:
(a)the date on which the condition occurred; and
(b)whether the Applicant’s condition results from reasonable administrative action, reasonably taken by the Respondent, in respect of Applicant’s employment such that no entitlement arises in respect of it.
I agree with the Respondent’s characterisation of the issues before the Tribunal. I will address each in turn below.
Date of injury: the medical evidence
The Applicant submitted that the date on which her psychiatric condition first manifested was May 2021:
In workers compensation application form, the injury date I entered was 30 Jun, 2022, which was a mistake. After having more knowledge about Anxiety and Depression. The first symptom of the injury I suffered was Anxiety from May 2021 during the BW Ops task. I was feeling panic and having sense of impending danger each time I received [Ms R]’s email or talked to her.
The first reference to any work-related stress in the medical records is in the clinical records of Hornsby Medical Centre, where the Applicant had been a patient of Dr M Krishnan since at least 2014. On 6 August 2021 the Applicant had an appointment with Dr Krishnan, with the reason for visit recorded as “Checkup”. The doctor recorded on that occasion:
Stress with work / denied any other symp[tom]s / goign [sic] to have pfizervaccination
The Applicant had not been to Hornsby Medical Centre for almost a year prior to that 6 August 2021 appointment. She next attended an appointment at that medical centre on 9 October 2021 and the clinical notes detail that she had a long discussion with the doctor about the covid vaccination and a request for a covid antibodies blood test, with her reason for visit recorded as “vaccination advice”. There were no further mentions of any work-related stress in the clinical records from that medical centre, despite appointments with Dr Krishnan on 12 November 2021, Dr Ahmed on 15 November 2021, and Dr Krishan on 15 November 2021, all of which were concerned with the results from her blood test and her questions about the covid vaccine.
In contrast to the absence of any reported symptoms to her treating doctors, on 8 August 2021 the Applicant emailed the Respondent – specifically, Ms R and copied in the Respondent’s CEO, HR Manager, and Mr S and reported:
Since BW Ops, I was distressed and experiencing anxiety, feeling nervous and worried each time talking to you or receiving your emails, and hard to get into sleep. I have been suffering non-stop coughing after our Wed 1:1 Catch up. All these were due to your following repeated behaviours
Between 8 October 2021 and 27 November 2021, the Applicant also attended the Hornsby Station Medical Centre and had eight appointments with Dr Deng there. The clinical records of those appointments demonstrate the Applicant’s appointments were for her continued concerns regarding the covid vaccine, her hesitation in getting the Pfizer vaccine, and another request from the Applicant for a blood test in that context. There were no references at all to any complaints of stress by the Applicant, work-related or otherwise.
On 6 November 2021 the Applicant attended Hornsby Mall Medical Centre for the first time and had an appointment with Dr Badruddoja. He recorded:
NEW pt / normally healthy / stress and low mood / cant sleep / lack of patience/ motivation / lives with husband and one daughter
DASS 21: 21/16/21
wants to see counsellor / denies any suicidal and homicidal ideation
recurrent morning cough / chest clear / awaiting 1st dose COVID vaccine
Reason for visit:
Mental health care plan
Dr Badruddoja made no mention of any complaint by the Applicant in relation to her work or workplace in his clinical notes, the mental health care plan he prepared, or in the letter of referral he wrote to Ms Edwina Cowdery, psychologist.
The clinical records from the Applicant’s appointment with Dr Badruddoja on 6 November 2021 refer to a DASS-21 score of 21/16/21, which is indicative of “severe” depression and anxiety, and “moderate” stress. On the basis of Dr Badruddoja’s records and the absence of any reference therein to the Applicant’s workplace issues or Fair Work proceedings, or any other particular stressors, it is probable that the Applicant did not discuss the cause of her psychiatric symptoms with him. It is clear, however, from his referral, the DASS-21 score, and his clinical records, that the Applicant was suffering a psychiatric condition of some sort as at 6 November 2021.
It appears that the Applicant’s referral to Ms Cowdery was instead used for an appointment with Ms Leslie Spitz, a psychologist at the same practice. On 18 November 2021 the Applicant saw Ms Spitz for the first time. Ms Spitz recorded in her clinical records:
1. workplace: manager difference of opinion harassment and bullying; she was not happy with the task; she then made a deadline challenging and she was micromanaging you.
June and July performance periods her feedback was negative. In the July homeschooling pandemic, my daughter was 6 and in year 1, she needed support (Commonwealth Bank's good support policy offers Pandemic leave).
My cousin years old after the vaccination died. and she had deadlines and chasing them, and school homeschooling.
I was so exhausted physically and mentally, (back pain)
Explained I was overwhelmed to the manager; time perspective full time work hard, could she take some leave.
21 and 22 July had Dr's note to stay home.
[Ms R]s On the the23rd July FRIDAY talk about performance review a lot of negative feedback. not acceptable. We have a record of hiccups (I have awards and comments from the manager's manager); she said other team members with young children try to cope themselves. and said Pandemic leave was authorized
27th replied formally to email re: performance review to try and defend herself again.
29th a meeting invitation for 4th of August (a week later) thought it was one on one. However, it was that the last one was a performance management program to address her performance issues. She was then given 4 weeks and then if she did not get better she would be dismissed.
I became sick, stressed, anxious, could not sleep, coughing constantly, before Friday I was nervous to talk to her and felt worried when I received emails and the information was always sharp and unreasonable, she humiliated me on the team meetings on the topic I as talking about. My topic she made improper comments and made me feel embarrassed.
Now I am feeling so lost, can't eat, no motivation to cook for daughter properly, my husband is looking after all of these things. can't read or craftor school work with daughter. She is running around with herself, she lost quality Mommy time. Feeling like crying I am trying to manage myself but it does not go away.
Coughing, could not concentrate, could not sleep, could not do my normal routine.
[Ms R]'s manager had a meeting with him. He said the same thing. It did help and felt like it had not been confidential.
I felt I was really in trouble. If I disagree with the arrangement what should do.
Make a claim with HR (Commonwealth)
Fairwork Commission; workplace bullying 6th of August I lodged an application.
On Saturday the 7th of August: "Commencement of informal performance management " - one issue was time frames, we will meet each week to discuss performance and feedback every Wednesday and a written report and timeline of her activities including final delivery date.
10th of August, [Mr S] the other manager organized a meeting with [TQJY] to address her concerns. He wants to do internal investigations and met with her and a notetaker.
NO BULLYING HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, I need to report back to [Ms R], I disagree.
Legal team looking after her case. Her feedback was "no bullying identified".
I did not agree on that Wednesday but she said in the email we agreed. She requested a report with the manager and he suggested she go to HR>
I feel really really bullied. If you talk about something with facts I would be okay but talking about something that did not happen was very wrong.
1st of September; conference; Legal rep from Commonwealth bank and [Mr S] and [Ms R] and Commissioner. He would like to schedule a hearing. then they want a conciliation meeting. after documentation and the hearing
I have found a lawyer to represent me.
24th this month Conciliation, 7th of December hearing.
The lawyer try to negotiate with Commonwealth bank before the legal procedure. "the manager had misrepresented her and behavior nasty and [TQJY] had been victimized".
Feeling uncomfortable and anxious. It was all so unpleasant. I lost trust in [Ms R]. I did my job with good quality no problem in the past, no performance issues in the past.
Crying: every time I think about it I want to cry. Every route I was blocked.
-------------------------
Under a different manager but the bank still wants me to report to [Ms R].
It killed my confidence, it made me doubt myself. I don't understand why people not telling the truth, what do they want to achieve.
The Applicant was questioned why she did not report her stress or workplace issues to Dr Deng in the same period in which she was also having appointments with Dr Badruddoja, Dr Rahman and Ms Spitz. Her evidence was that she had attended Dr Deng, who was also Chinese, for many years and was not comfortable sharing those issues with her. I accept that evidence, as the medical evidence for this period demonstrates that the Applicant was seeing multiple healthcare professionals in the same period and was clearly selective about what she disclosed in each appointment. Her main focus of concern prior to 18 November 2021, when she first saw Ms Spitz, seems to be related to the covid vaccination.
On 25 November 2021 the Applicant had an appointment with Dr Rahman at the Hornsby Mall Medical Centre who recorded:
History:
going through anxiety , work releated stress '/ as job is crisis - going throught reconciliation / and now at the stage of hearing ,/ stress too much , palpitaions, anxiety , slept late last night / no break-fast ,not hungery, / some abdomenal pain , 'not enjoing time with daughter now ./ can't focus , preoccupied with the work isses Reason for visit:
Anxiety/Depression
Dr Rahman prescribed the Applicant 50mg Zoloft and certified her as unfit to work for 2 days. The Applicant’s evidence was that she never took the prescribed medication.
The Applicant had a further appointment with Ms Spitz on 3 December 2021 where she spoke about the Fair Work conciliation which had taken place on 24 November 2021, and again went over her workplace complaints regarding Ms R’s management of her. On 6 December 2021 Ms Spitz wrote a letter for the Applicant in support of her name being anonymised in the Fair Work Commission decision and referred to the Applicant’s diagnosis of ‘Adjustment Disorder with Depression’.
In April 2022 Ms Spitz wrote another letter for the Applicant in support of her name being anonymised in the Fair Work Commission decision, referring to her having “ongoing depressive symptoms”. That letter did not refer to any diagnosis.
The next time the Applicant saw Ms Spitz was on 6 May 2022, where she noted that the Applicant was working full time and was “not [on] workers comp[ensation]”. In that session the Applicant complained to Ms Spitz about the “easter egg story” and said, “my mood and health are going up and down with all the CBA internal investigations always finding [TQJY] is wrong and [Ms R] is right”. By the next appointment on 17 June 2022 the Applicant reported feeling “a bit better now”, being “a happier person” and spoke positively about her work and team contribution in circumstances where she was being managed by a different person, who “is a new manager, flexible, she is not too bad, and can adjust to different personalities”.
On 28 June 2022, the Fair Work Commission published their decision, finding that the Applicant had not been subjected to bullying, and dismissing her application. On 4 July 2022, the Applicant had an appointment with Dr Rahman but made no mention of any stress, anxiety or depression symptoms.
On 14 July 2022, the Applicant was informed that she would be returning to her substantive position, under her previous manager Ms R, from 25 July 2022. On 20 July 2022 the Applicant saw Dr Rahman and from the clinical records of that visit, it appears that the Applicant requested a WorkCover Certificate which he was unwilling to provide, referring her to another medical practice:
anxiety ,difficult to sleep , work stress / ongoing work releated issues ./ discuss about treatment option ,/ she like to do under work cover
inform patient ,we do not offer work cover care at present ./ will see another practice for it ,
Reason for visit:
anxiety disorder
Actions:
advise re anxiety management medication etc,
patient happy to see another practice to do the full work cover
and care .
Medical Certificate given.
Dr Rahman certified the Applicant as unfit to work from 18 July 2022 to 29 July 2022. The Applicant then attended the Madison Medical Practice in Hornsby, where she had been managed previously in 2020 for an adjustment disorder. She saw Dr Wijayakumar, also on 20 July 2022, who recorded:
in Depression and anxiety long standing
seeing Dr.Rahman 32 Florence Street. Hornsby as usual GP last 1-2 years
last blood tests early July 2022 with Dr.Raham
as per pt she claims that she has requested a w/c to start for her mental health issues and she claims her usual GP rejected the request and was told her that he was too busy with his work with patients
pt came in here to find out a w/c doctor
seeing psychologist since Dec 2021 Lesly in Hornsby
long standing work confilict issues / wants to start w/c here
I have advised I am not comfortable to start a work cover for her as I don't know any thing about her past work related mental health issues
advised to contact her usual GP to liaise her with a work cover doctor
follow up with usual GP for depression, pt is saying her usual GP offered her antidepressants and herself not started yet
long consult
Actions:
Letter printed.
My Health Record Document imported from My Health Record re. Pathology Overview
On 26 July 2022 the Applicant attended the Granville Medical Centre for the first time and had an appointment with Dr Mouawad. Dr Mouawad created a workers compensation certificate of capacity for the Applicant and recorded her date of injury as 30 June 2022:
unable to sleep well / low mood / food tastes different /- since end of June / crying sometimes / feels overwhelmed all the time / small thing needs effort / usually likes to go out with friends
- no motivation / sometimes struggles to find car in shopping centre / not concentrating / since May last year / joined a companay dec 2020 / everything was going well till May 2021 / clashes with manager at work / 'she became worrid and anxious everytime she sees her / during pandemic
- daughter 6 years old
- pandemic leave support from company- manager wasnt happy; she put her in performance program - she needs to be watched for 4 weeks
- she feels like she was punished
- from that time couldnt sleep at night
- she tried to talk to her but she felt she wasnt heard
- she spoked to her managers manager / lodged application to fair work
- she was assigned to different manager / --> then her symptoms got better
- her new manager was better, she felt respected / fair work: application got dismissed / - they couldnt put an order to stop bullying; this was in June this year /
beginning July / they told her she now needs to report to old manager and she needs to continue with performance program / - she passed twice her performance; she couldnt understand purpose / her mental health not fully recovered / she was given 1 week annual leave from 18th July
- after holiday from 25 July she is to report back to old manager / she hasnt been able to sleep / she feels trapped / previouslly seeing psychologist for depression and anxiety / she feels unabelt to step back because of job security and financial support she feels like she is going nowhere / her mind is not clear / struggling to prioritize / she feels streessed over the smallest things /
she saw her psychologist who suggested workcover
not looking forward to anything / everything is worthless / no matter what she does - nothing good happening
nil suicidal thoughts / PMHx / depression and anxiety / - sees psychologist
Meds / nil
she is also struggling with daughter / 7 yo / shes becoming more negative
advised / WC paperwork complete
needs 2 weeks at least with no work as she is highly anxious / sleep hygiene discussed / diet and exercise is crucial / psych review often / if continues to feel down, conside anti-depressants / review 12/8 or earlier if needed
Reason for visit:
Worker's compensation

On 8 August 2022 the Applicant made her claim for workers compensation, stating “My recent injury was from 30 June, 2022” and claiming to have first sought medical attention for her condition on 4 July 2022 with Dr Rahman. In response to the question “Have you ever had a similar injury or illness, work-related or otherwise” the Applicant responded “Yes” and stated, “Adjustment Disorder in May 2020” and “Anxiety and Depression since May 2021”. The Applicant claimed to have received medical treatment from Leslie Spitz “from May 2021”, and identified Ms R and Mr S as individuals “responsible for your injury or illness”. The Applicant attached a 7 page “Event Statement” to her claim. In that Event Statement the Applicant stated “I was hurt and started suffering anxiety and depression”, attributing the date of her injury to “May 2021” and Ms R’s management of her in relation to the BW Ops Task, and then detailing further events in July 2021 regarding her request for leave and being placed on an IPMP, 28 June 2022 Fair Work Commission decision, and the decision to return her to Ms R’s management around 13-14 July 2022. The Applicant also referred to “other events which contributed to my mental illness” as the “Easter Egg” incident, “LSL Overhaul and BW Ops”, “Assigned tasks under my grade”, “Assigned tasks outside the scope of my position description”, “forced taking annual leave”, and “inconsistent communications”.
The Applicant was examined by 4 psychiatrists for the purpose of her workers compensation claim, and their diagnoses are referred to above at ‎23]. Dr Gill stated that a “cumulative impact of significant events” contributed to the Applicant’s development of an “Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood”. Dr Christopher Canaris and Dr Hall did not opine on a date of injury. Dr Melissa Barrett noted in the history provided by the Applicant of “the onset of psychiatric symptoms in about May 2021, at their worst from April 2022 through till August or September 2023”.
A letter tendered from Dr Mouawad dated 20 June 2025 referred to “a three year history of symptoms consistent with depressive and panic disorder in the context of workplace bullying and harassment”, implying that the Applicant’s condition first manifested in around June 2022. I note that Dr Mouawad stated “there have been no previous mental health problems” and “she had no previous psychiatric history”, which is inaccurate on the available medical evidence of the Applicant’s past psychological treatment ion 2020.
The Applicant submitted that she did not initially seek medical assistance in May 2021 relation to her psychiatric symptoms because she was “hoping some rest can help me recover”:
I did not see a doctor on the day hoping some rest can help me recover. I did not mention to [Ms R] the headache was work stress related. The reason was I was trying to maintain a good relationship with [Ms R] and tried to cope myself. I had no capacity to work on the day since the headache was so severe that made me feel difficult to focus and work. I said “May I take sick leave?”, thinking using “May I …” was a politer and more respectful way to communication in that situation.
Further, she submitted that:
I was feeling anxious and worried about the pending danger each time I communicated with [Ms R] since May 2021. Those were symptoms of anxiety.
…after [Ms R] placed me on the Informal Performance Management Program, my mental health deteriorated, I started coughing day and night, liver pain and felt even harder to get into sleep. The symptoms made me significantly concerned about my health, so I went to see Dr Krishnan. She said those symptoms were caused by stress with work.
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s psychiatric condition did not first manifest on 28 May 2021, as alleged by the Applicant, because there was no contemporaneous supporting medical evidence. The Respondent contended that, based on the medical evidence, the Applicant was not suffering from any psychiatric condition prior to 6 November 2021, and that one prior reference to “stress at work” in a clinical entry dated 6 August 2021 was not indicative that the Applicant was, prior to 6 November 2021, suffering from a psychiatric condition ‘which went outside the boundaries of normal mental functioning and behaviour’ (a Mooi condition), as is required to give rise to liability under the SRC Act: see Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439.
I agree with the Respondent’s submission. There is no evidence that Dr Krishnan “said those symptoms [referring to coughing, liver pain, and difficulty sleeping] were caused by stress with work”, as submitted by the Applicant. The clinical notes entry of 8 August 2021 is not consistent with that evidence. The Applicant’s email to the Respondent of 8 August 2021 refers to coughing and difficulty sleeping, but neither of those symptoms was reported to her treating medical practitioners at that time. In my view the Applicant included them in her email to add weight and significance to the Fair Work Commissions Stop Bullying application she was notifying them about, not because she was actually experiencing those symptoms.
The Applicant frequently attended a range of medical practitioners throughout 2021 and 2022 and did not disclose any psychiatric symptoms until 6 November 2021. This is unusual in circumstances where she had sought and received treatment previously for a similar psychiatric condition (which had long since resolved) in 2020. On the basis of her previous treatment history, it is more probable than not that if she was experiencing similar psychological symptoms earlier in 2021, she would have sought treatment for those symptoms. I find based on the medical evidence that, whilst the Applicant began experiencing some stress earlier in 2021 which she later attributed to issues at her workplace, it was not so serious or significant to require medical treatment until 6 November 2021, when she first saw Dr Badruddoja and he referred her to a psychologist. Had she been experiencing any of the symptoms she later attributed to her workplace, her treating medical practitioners would have made note of them and ordered investigations.
Whilst she may retrospectively believe she was suffering from a psychiatric or psychiatric condition earlier in 2021, it clearly had not manifested in a Mooi condition until 6 November 2021, when she sought a mental health care plan and was referred to a psychologist. In my view, the relevant date of injury is therefore 6 November 2021.
The medical evidence also clearly demonstrates that the Applicant’s condition escalated after 14 July 2022, when she was informed that she would be returning to her substantive position and supervised by Ms R from 25 July 2022.
Reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner
Whilst the Respondent has accepted the Applicant’s psychiatric condition was significantly contributed to by her employment with the Respondent, the Tribunal must still determine whether that injury was the result of “reasonable administrative action”, and whether that action was taken “in a reasonable manner”. To make those determinations, the Tribunal must consider and make findings about what, precisely, the conduct was which contributed to the Applicant’s condition.
There are a number of different incidents and issues raised by the Applicant as having contributed to her condition, which I have outlined above at paragraph [‎28]. I will consider each below, and other issues raised by the evidence before the Tribunal.
The Fair Work Commission’s findings
First, however, I will address an issue raised by the Applicant in relation to the findings of the Fair Work Commission in Ms W (a pseudonym) [2022] FWC 1627. In the Applicant’s closing submissions, she stated:
I reject respondent’s using FWC decision in this AAT matter. The reason was the evidence provided to FWC was only partial which was up to 6 August 2021, comparing to the one supplied to AAT which was up to 8 August 2022. The events like Easter Egg, Forced taking Annual Leave and Excluding from team meetings etc. were not in front of the FWC commissioner before his decision. The industry standard about BOOT calculations and [Ms R]’s training and professional background were also not provided as evidence in front of the FWC. Based on the information above, I will not accept any respondent’s submissions using the FWC decision.
The Fair Work Commission proceedings were concerned with two of the incidents which the Applicant attempts to reventilate in these proceedings: the BW Ops Task and her placement on the IPMP. Both of those incidents occurred prior to the Applicant’s date of injury in these proceedings, and for reasons I discuss above (in the context of the date of injury) and below, I do not consider them significantly relevant, other than as background information to the Applicant’s claim.
In relation to those background incidents, whilst I accept that the Fair Work Commission did not have all of the evidence before it that I have, and was considering a different issue to the issues I am determining, that does not mean that its findings are irrelevant, that the Respondent cannot make submissions about them, or that I cannot refer to or rely on those findings.
The Fair Work Commission, in considering the Applicant’s application for an order under Part 6-4B of the Fair Work Act 2009, considered the following evidence which was also relied upon in these proceedings: Witness Statement of the Applicant dated 1 November 2021 (at ST36), Reply Witness Statement of the Applicant dated 22 November 2021 (at T7), Witness Statement of Ms R dated 15 November 2021 (at T4), Witness Statement of Mr C dated 15 November 2021 (referred to in these proceedings as Mr S, at T5). The Fair Work Commission also had extensive written submissions from both parties, extracted at paragraphs 64 to 69 of that decision: Applicants Outline of Submissions dated 1 November 2021, Respondent’s Outline of Submissions dated 15 November 2021, Applicants Reply Submissions dated 22 November 2021, Applicants Closing Submissions dated 12 January 2022, Respondent’s Closing Submissions dated 21 January 2022, Applicant’s Closing Submissions in Reply dated 28 January 2022. The Tribunal did not have the benefit of those submissions in these proceedings. The Applicant had the benefit of representation by solicitors and counsel in the Fair Work Commission proceedings, which she does not here.
The Fair Work Commission made factual findings with which this Tribunal is not bound. This Tribunal can, however, come to the same or similar conclusions as the Fair Work Commission, if the evidence here supports such findings.
The BW Ops Task
As referred to above, I have found that the BW Ops Task occurred some months before the Applicant developed any psychological symptoms of her injury and even longer before she developed a Mooi condition. Nevertheless, it has some limited relevance as background to the development of the Applicant’s condition.
The Fair Work Commission’s summary of the BW Ops Task is of assistance, and I adopt it in these proceedings:
[77] The Ops Task was allocated to the Applicant on 12 May 2021, with a deadline for completion by 28 May 2021. The Applicant was not allocated any other tasks to perform between 12 and 28 May 2021.[89] The deadline for completion (28 May 2021) was a deadline by which the Assurance Team needed to provide the completed Ops Task for provision to the client. In other words, the Applicant needed to provide her calculations in respect of the Ops Task prior to 28 May 2021 so that they could be peer reviewed (checked) by another member of the Assurance Team (in this case, Ms R) prior to delivery up to the client (or another team within GAF or the Employer’s business).
[78] By way of email from Ms R dated 12 May 2021, the Applicant was provided with “everything [information and data] I’ve received so far” and asked to “have a read and we’ll discuss tomorrow morning”.[90] In terms of the information and data provided to the Applicant, it encompassed business roster data, not actual payroll data. Further information in relation to codes and assumptions for the calculations was provided to the Applicant post 12 May 2021.[91]
[79] On 13 May 2021, the Applicant raised with Ms R that she did not consider that she had all necessary information and data to complete the Ops Task. The Applicant considered that historical (actual) payroll data was required to complete the task. Ms R (relevantly) responded to the Applicant’s request for historical payroll data by advising the Applicant that:
a) historical payroll data is not required for the Ops Task to be undertaken or completed;[92]
b) the business roster data that has been provided to the Applicant is to be taken, for the purposes of undertaking and completing the Ops Task, as true and accurate; and
what the Applicant is being asked to do is what the Assurance Team has been asked to do, including meeting the deadline set for 28 May 2021. In other words, the Assurance Team had been asked to complete the Ops Task along certain parameters, and the Applicant as a member of the Assurance Team, was required to complete the task for and on behalf of the Assurance Team (subject to peer review).
[80] It became apparent by 25/26 May 2021 that the Applicant would not have the Ops Task calculations completed in time for peer review prior to 28 May 2021.[93] Indeed, in relation to the little data that the Applicant had prepared as of 26 May 2021, some of it was incomplete (albeit this was corrected by the Applicant that day).
[81] On 26 May 2021, another Assurance Team member was asked to assist the Applicant in completing the calculations required for the Ops Task. This Assurance Team member ended up taking over the Ops Task, completing it himself, and providing it to Ms R for peer review. Of the portion of the data from the Applicant that had been used by the other Assurance Team member, there were missing and duplicated dates.
[82] In summary, the Applicant did not complete the Ops Task as requested by Ms R within the timeframe that had been allocated to her, and the work that she did perform in relation to the Ops Task was not accurate or otherwise reliable, and required further remediation.
The Fair Work Commission went on to summarise the Applicant’s position in relation to the BW Ops Task as:
[83] The Applicant does not deny that she failed to meet the Ops Task deadline, or that the work (calculations) she did provide were less than satisfactory. Rather, the Applicant essentially makes a plea in mitigation of her shortcomings, and says that the timeframe between 12 and 28 May 2021 was unreasonable, thus affecting her performance, and her ability to deliver the task. In this regard, the Applicant points to the complexity of the Ops Task and the volume of data to be analysed, the provision of incomplete information, the sporadic and delayed provision of details required for completion of the Ops Task, the failure to provide historical (actual) payroll data (despite repeated requests for same by the Applicant), and the Applicant’s lack of training in SQL.
The Applicant raised the same arguments in these proceedings, with her submissions focused on demonstrating that her qualifications and experience were superior to Ms R’s, and that her view of the scope of the BW Ops task and what was therefore required of and for her to complete the task should be preferred. This was submitted to demonstrate the unreasonableness of Ms R’s conduct towards her in relation to the BW Ops Task:
the approach and advice I provided to [Ms R] were according to Industry Standard, my concerns were reasonable in nature.
…
[Ms R] as a manager failed to consider an experienced payroll specialist’s advice and concerns, and provide the accurate and complete information I needed to complete the task.
As submitted by the Applicant, the Fair Work Commission did not consider some additional evidence the Applicant tendered in these proceedings. This included a document titled “industry standard of BW Ops Task” prepared by the Applicant, which I believe is the documents she referred to as “industry standard of BOOT calculations” in her written submissions. The additional evidence also included a copy of the first page of Ms R’s LinkedIn profile.
Neither of the two additional documents tendered by the Applicant in these proceedings advances the Applicant’s claims beyond the facts already considered by the Fair Work Commission. The “industry standard” document, contrary to its title, does not actually contain any evidence of standards in a particular industry or in relation to BOOT calculations (howsoever described). The “industry standard” document rather contains evidence of the Applicant’s professional experience and her understanding and opinion of the requirements of the BW Ops Task, her opinion of her role in completing the BW Ops Task, extracts from team and instruction emails, and screenshots of parts of the Bankwest Enterprise Agreement 2019, BOOT12 templates, CBA values, and her responses to the Respondents’ witnesses’ evidence filed in the Fair Work Commission proceedings. The LinkedIn profile was tendered by the Applicant for the purpose of submitting Ms R’s “payroll and payroll system knowledge and work experience were quite narrow”. Ms R’s experience at the Commonwealth Bank and the Applicant’s qualifications and experience were not new evidence and were considered by the Fair Work Commission (specifically at paragraphs 21 to 25 of that decision).
Emails tendered by the Respondent between the Applicant, Ms R, Mr S, and the other staff member who completed the BW Ops Task instead of the Applicant (Mr A) supported the undisputed factual matters outlined at ‎22(h)]‎22(k)] above. They also demonstrate that the Applicant’s concerns in relation to that task were addressed appropriately by Ms R and Mr S.
As discussed above, there is no supporting evidence for the Applicant’s claim that she started suffering symptoms of anxiety and depression as a result of the BW Ops Task and I therefore do not find that this occurred as claimed, retrospectively, by the Applicant.
The evidence of Ms R and Mr S was that the BW Ops task assigned to the Applicant was part of a larger BankWest BOOT project. The Applicant’s role was to provide the assigned calculations, which were limited in scope. The Applicant was not required to perform a comprehensive BOOT test, but only to perform calculations required as part of that overall BOOT project. The emails tendered by the Respondent support that evidence. From the Applicant’s cross-examination at hearing, the questions she asked of Ms R in cross-examination, and her written submissions, it is apparent that the Applicant misunderstood her role in the BW Ops Task and the scope of her contribution to the BW Ops Task. The Applicant believed she was required to conduct a comprehensive BOOT test, which is why she considered the information she had been provided was insufficient. She did not complete the limited calculations she was tasked in the time allocated. Both Ms R and Mr S explained this to the Applicant in their cross-examination by her, which she seemed unwilling to accept. I accept the Respondent’s evidence about the scope of the task and that this was explained to the Applicant at the time.
The Applicant’s evidence at hearing and her submissions demonstrate her unwillingness to accept that the Respondent’s conduct towards her in relation to the BW Ops Task was reasonable, because of her belief that she was more experienced and qualified than Ms R. She is also unwilling to accept that this didn’t constitute “bullying” by Ms R and Mr S, despite findings by the Respondent and the Fair Work Commission to that effect. This forms the background for the Applicant’s interactions with Ms R and Mr S in relation to her condition.
The IPMP
The Applicant’s negative view of interactions with Ms R and Mr S as “bullying” continued with the introduction of her IPMP. The Applicant alleged that she was placed on an IPMP in August 2021 by the Respondent “with no reasonable grounds”, and implies that the reason (or one of the reasons) for this was her request for leave, which she claims her managers “were not happy about”. In her closing submissions she claims that she was unaware that the meeting invitation she had accepted for 4 August 2021 was for the purposes of performance management, and submitted:
In fact, on the day, after she explained the nature of the Informal Performance Management, I rejected it straight away and said to her I would seek a review. (refer her email in Attachment H)
30. I communicated clearly already I disagreed the Informal Performance Program and we did not agree anything in the meeting on that day. The contents in her email horrified me. I was shaking when I was reading her email. It triggered my panic attack.

First, the contemporaneous medical evidence does not support any such psychological reaction by the Applicant to being informed that she was to undergo informal performance management. In her appointment with Dr Krishnan on 6 August 2021 – which was before the confirmation email sent by Ms R to the Applicant about the matters discussed at the meeting on 4 August 2021 – he recorded “Stress with work / denied any other symp[tom]s”. In her email to the Respondent of 8 August 2021 she reported “coughing” and problems sleeping (which I have found above, did not actually occur as reported), but made no reference to “shaking” or a “panic attack”. I therefore do not accept her evidence or submission that she had a panic attack at that time.
The Respondent submitted:
15. In respect of [TQJY]’s condition prior to that date, the respondent submits that it is clear that the decision to put her on an IPMP was an action without which she would not have suffered her present condition. It is clear that [TQJY] has a strong belief that that decision was not justified and she has taken numerous steps to dispute that decision including internal review by both [Mr S] and Ms. M, and commencement of proceedings in the Fair Work Commission as well as the present proceedings; she suffered no incapacity for work and did not seek or require any medical or other treatment prior to that decision having been taken, and most significantly, no allegation of bullying by Ms. R was raised by [TQJY] before it.
I do not entirely agree with those submissions. The decision to place the Applicant on an IPMP was conveyed to her on 4 August 2021. The evidence demonstrates that she did not seek or require any medical or other treatment prior to 6 November 2021. As discussed above, although she reported “stress at work” to Dr Krishnan on 6 August 2021, she “denied all other symptoms” and the appointment was made for the purpose of a checkup, not because she was experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression.
On the medical evidence before me I find that the Applicant’s placement on an IPMP did not contribute to her development of psychological symptoms and did not contribute to her injury. It did, however, contribute to her feelings that she was being bullied by Ms R and Mr S. Feeling bullied is not, however, a psychiatric condition, or evidence of psychological symptoms, in and of itself.
The Applicant’s submissions appeared to suggest that being placed on the IPMP was not “reasonable” administrative action, and the way that it was done shocked her so much that it could not be “taken in a reasonable manner”. I do not need to determine whether the exception of “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner” applies where I have determined that the placement of the Applicant on an IPMP did not cause or contribute to the Applicant’s injury.
The Fair Work Commission proceedings
As discussed above, the Applicant’s psychological symptoms manifested as a Mooi condition on 6 November 2021, and there is no significant medical evidence of psychological symptoms prior to that date. What, then, caused this manifestation of the Applicant’s psychiatric condition at that time?
On 6 August 2021 – immediately after the Applicant was placed on the IPMP and had a meeting with Mr S which confirmed this – the Applicant filed a “Stop Bullying” application in the Fair Work Commission which commenced legal proceedings against Ms R and, by extension, the Respondent. She mentioned “stress” to Dr Rahman on that same day, but (as discussed above), did not purport to have any other or significant psychological symptoms.
On 13 October 2021 directions were made in the Fair Work Commission to progress the Applicant’s Stop Bullying application to hearing, after months of discussions and conciliations attempting alternative dispute resolution. The Applicant’s evidence in those proceedings – her witness statement – was filed on 1 November 2021. In that statement, the Applicant said:
Since 10 August 2021, I have reported to [Ms L], Delivery Support Manager, HR Gov & Optimisation, instead of [Ms R]. I have been performing Assurance work Treasury/Teller One Allowance - Review and Remediation and BOOT12 2021 UT/UAT tasks and have received no negative feedback since working for [Ms L]. I am comfortable working with [Ms L]. Given what has happened, I feel very anxious about the prospect of being forced by CBA to report to and work for [Ms R] again.
I am comfortable with working in the same team as her, but no longer trust her and am fearful of her being my manager again.
Within a few days after making that statement, the Applicant’s beliefs were causing her sufficient anxiety to make an appointment at a medical centre she had not previously attended, to seek treatment. It appears that the belief she would be placed back into a position where Ms R managed her is what caused the Applicant’s condition to manifest around that date. Otherwise, the Applicant was “comfortable”.
Between her appointment with Dr Baddrudoja on 6 November 2021 and her first appointment with the psychologist Ms Spitz on 18 November 2021, the Applicant is likely to have received the Respondent’s evidence in the Fair Work Commission proceedings, which was dated 15 November 2021. Ms Spitz’s clinical notes of the appointment on 18 November 2021 include multiple references to the Fair Work Commission proceedings as stressors and, significantly,
Under a different manager but the bank still wants me to report to [Ms R].
It killed my confidence, it made me doubt myself. I don't understand why people not telling the truth, what do they want to achieve.
Her next medical appointment was at the same medical centre at which she had seen Dr Baddrudoja on 6 November 2021. She saw Dr Rahman instead on 25 November 2021 and his clinical records demonstrate she reported psychological symptoms caused by her Fair Work Commission proceedings (see paragraph [‎41] above), significant enough to warrant a prescription for Zoloft and 2 days off work. This appointment was the day after the final conciliation in those proceedings (according to Ms Spitz’s notes which recorded a conciliation listed for 24 November). I find therefore that the Applicant’s symptoms on that date were entirely caused by the prospect of a looming hearing in the Fair Work Commission.
Following the hearing on 7 December 2021, the Applicant appears to have not seen any doctors or psychologists in relation to any psychological symptoms until May 2022. The Applicant’s own account of this period demonstrates that she was not suffering the effects of any psychiatric condition during this period. She was being managed by [Ms L], not Ms R, and:
“I gradually recovered from the mental illness and was able to concentrate and work as normal”
There is no evidence that the Applicant was suffering any psychological symptoms during this period between 7 December 2021 and May 2022. In circumstances where she was under the care of a general practitioner and a psychologist for anxiety and depression, it is reasonable to infer that if she had been suffering psychological symptoms, she would have reported these to her treating medical practitioners. She did not, and I therefore infer that she was not suffering any psychological symptoms during that time.
“Other events which contributed to my mental illness”
In her “Events Statement” filed with her workers compensation claim on 8 August 2022, the Applicant referred to the following additional incidents or events which she claimed contributed to her “mental illness”:
(a)The Easter Egg Incident;
(b)LSL Overhaul and BW Ops;
(c)Assigned tasks under my grade;
(d)Assigned tasks outside the scope of my position description;
(e)Forced taking annual leave;
(f)Inconsistent communications.
The Applicant did not elaborate in her evidence or submissions how each of those incidents, individually or wholistically, contributed to her psychological symptoms or the development of her psychiatric condition.
Notably, she made no reference to the Fair Work Commission proceedings or the decision delivered on 28 June 2022 which dismissed her Stop Bullying application, in her Events Statement or her claim for workers compensation, both dated 8 August 2022.
The Easter Egg Incident
The Applicant saw Ms Spitz in May 2022. In that appointment, she referred to an “easter egg incident”, which was later submitted by the Applicant to be one of the causative factors of her psychiatric condition.
According to the Applicant’s “Events Statement” attached to her workers compensation claim submitted on 8 August 2022, the following occurred:
In Apr 2022, before the Easter holiday, we had a Governance and Assurance team meeting. The meeting host, which was not [Mr S], brought some Easter Eggs to share with the team. As the meeting table was quite large and team members hardly to reach the egg basket. [Mr S] was distributing the eggs to each of us. He started from his right-hand side. I was sitting the 3rd next to his right. He passed the eggs to the 1st and 2nd team members next to his right and he stopped. Then he restarted to distribute the eggs from his left-hand side. At the end, he did not pass the egg to me. Instead, he asked the team member sitting next to me to pass the egg to me. Everybody in the meeting room were watching and I felt badly humiliated.
Mr S’s statement denied any recollection of this incident having occurred. Under cross examination he could not recall any meeting where easter eggs were distributed at all, or by him. In both written and oral evidence, he said words to the effect that if such an incident had happened, and he simply could not recollect it, there was absolutely no intention on his part to exclude the Applicant or humiliate her.
In submissions, the Applicant appears to have misunderstood that evidence as demonstrating an inconsistency:
His two communications regarding Easter Egg event were not consistent, which indicated that he did not want to accept his behaviour on the day.
The Respondent submitted that the Applicant’s evidence was somewhat contradictory:
She first said that there were 10 or so people gathered around a large round table with the basket of eggs placed in the middle, which made it difficult for everyone to reach in and get the eggs themselves. She said that she was the third person to Mr. S’s right, and he distributed eggs to the first two people to his right and then stopped and commenced handing eggs to the people on his left. She later said she was opposite him at the table, which seems unlikely given that there were 10 people around a large round table, and she was only the third person to his right, and that he gave an egg to ‘Joanne’, who was the second person to his right to pass to her, but that he gave eggs to everyone else himself. Asked how he did that and whether he moved around the table, she said he moved a little, but did not say he left his position and walked around, but rather that he leaned across to hand out the eggs. If he was able to hand out eggs to those opposite him (other than [TQJY]), it is difficult to see how, given that she had said that it was too difficult for people to reach into the middle of the table to help themselves to the eggs.
The Respondent also submitted that, even if the Tribunal were to accept the Applicant’s evidence that the incident occurred, there was an innocent explanation available for Mr S’s conduct:
[The Applicant] had become so convinced of the unfairness she wrongly perceived of the decision to place her on an IPMP and [Mr S’]’s agreement with that decision (she had, after all, been happily working under [Ms L] and not Ms. R since August of the previous year) that she fixed on the incident as further ‘proof’ of being victimized by Mr. S when in truth it was nothing of the sort.
I agree with the Respondent. There is just no objective evidence that this incident occurred in the manner alleged by the Applicant.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is probable that there was a meeting in which easter eggs were provided to the team by a colleague of the Applicant’s, and she didn’t receive one. However, there is no available evidence that Mr S or any other staff member of the Respondent’s deliberately excluded her in distributing the eggs. In circumstances where the Applicant was awaiting the decision of the Fair Work Commission in her Stop Bullying application, it is highly likely that if such an incident had occurred as alleged, the Applicant would have raised it with her manager, someone else within the Respondent’s organization, or even her own solicitors. In the absence of any corroborative evidence whatsoever, in those circumstances, I am not satisfied that it occurred as alleged.
There is also no medical evidence to support the Tribunal finding that such an incident caused or contributed to the Applicant’s psychological symptoms. Although Ms Spitz notes refer to the “easter egg story” and “[Mr S] knows I am going thru a psychologicaL PROBLEM AND HE STILL IS COLD BLOODED WITH THE EASTER EGG”, the only references to psychological symptoms at that appointment are:
my mood and health are going up and down with all the CBA internal investigations always finding [the Applicant] is wrong and [Ms R] is right.
I am therefore not satisfied that this incident – where the Applicant attended a meeting in which easter eggs were provided to the team by a colleague of the Applicant’s, and she didn’t receive one – caused or contributed to the Applicant’s injury.
Forced leave
In June 2022, the Applicant took 5 days annual leave. The Applicant alleged that Mr S forced her to take that leave, despite her annual leave balance being under 10 days and that she had planned to take her annual leave in July and December 2022. She submitted:
In Jun 2022, when Group HR encouraging employees who got big leave balance to take some leave before the end of financial year. I was reporting to [Ms L] at that time. I talked my situation of having less than 10 days balance with 19 days of planned future Annual Leave. [Ms L] said she was ok with that. She did not enforce me to take the five days Annual leave.
However, after a few days [Ms L] came back to me and asked me to send her an email with my leave balance and future leave plan. I did. Later, in our employee and manger one on one meeting she said that I had to take five days annual leave before the end of Jun, because in Governance and Assurance team, we have a rule which was “20 days Annual Leave must be taken per financial year”.
[Mr S] was the head of the Governance and Assurance. That rule was formed by him.
There was no evidence that Mr S directly required or directed the Applicant to take leave. There was also no objective or corroborative evidence to support the Applicant’s claim that her manager had told her she “had to take five days annual leave before the end of Jun, because in Governance and Assurance team, we have a rule which was “20 days Annual Leave must be taken per financial year””. Mr S’s evidence was that the Respondent encouraged employees to utilize rather than accrue their annual leave, but there was no policy or ‘rule’ that they must take 20 days of Annual Leave per financial year.
I am not satisfied that the Respondent or its employees forced the Applicant to take annual leave in the manner described by her. There is also no medical evidence to suggest that the Applicant suffered any psychological symptoms in relation to a requirement or a belief of a requirement to take annual leave in June 2022.
Unfair criticism
The Applicant submitted that she was penalised and criticised for delayed completion of tasks, such as the BW Ops Task in May 2021 and an “Annual Leave Loading Task” which she was tasked with in June 2021, when other individuals were not criticised for delays.
The evidence and submissions from both parties on this issue focused on whether criticism of the Applicant in relation to her performance of these tasks in May and June 2021 was justified. This could be relevant to a question of whether the Respondent’s actions were “reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner”. However, there is no medical evidence causally connecting this criticism (whether justified or otherwise) to the Applicant experiencing any psychological symptoms. I therefore am not satisfied that such criticism caused or contributed to the Applicant’s development of her psychiatric condition.
“Work outside role”:
The Applicant complained that a further contributor to her “mental illness” was:
Being assigned work below her “grade” and being assigned work outside the scope of her role, including being requested to chair a team meeting.
This issue was not addressed by the Applicant in her closing submissions.
It was undisputed that when the Applicant commenced her role with the Respondent, she was first assigned to the BOOT12 team which was “two grades” beneath her substantive position. In the period that the Applicant was being managed by [Ms L], during the Fair Work Commission proceedings, there is a suggestion that this role was not at the same level as her substantive role. The email sent to the Applicant by Mr S on 15 July 2022 informing of her return to her substantive role infers this.
The Respondent submitted:
Whilst [Mr S] did confirm in cross-examination that he had not informed [the Applicant] that the work she was assigned in the BOOT12 team on commencement of her employment with the respondent was two grades beneath that of her substantive position, he also confirmed that she was at all times paid in accordance with her substantive position. It is difficult to see how the fact that she was not informed prior to commencing it that the work she performed in BOOT12 was two grades below her substantive position can have impacted upon her mental health, given that she “started to know it on the first day of onboarding” in any event and did not make any complaint at that time.
I agree with that submission. There is no evidence of any adverse mental health or psychological symptoms associated with the Applicant working in roles which were “below her grade”. To the contrary, the clinical notes of Ms Spitz record that the Applicant was comfortable and happy working under [Ms L], and it was only once she was informed that she was returning to her substantive position that her psychological symptoms manifested. There was also no evidence that being asked to chair a team meeting was associated with any specific psychological symptoms on any specific date.
I therefore am not satisfied that the Applicant being assigned work at a lower grade, or being asked to chair a team meeting, caused or contributed to any of the Applicant’s psychological symptoms or her psychiatric condition.
Requirement to return to her substantive position
On 28 June 2022, the Fair Work Commission delivered its decision, finding that the Applicant was not bullied by Ms R in relation to the events prior to 6 August 2021, and dismissing her Stop Bullying application.
On 4 July 2022, shortly after, Applicant had an appointment with Dr Rahman. In her Events Statement she said:
The moment I heard the news, I became sick again, experiencing liver area pain, hard to get into sleep, was worried and panic all the time. On 4 Jul I went to see GP. The GP described two medicines and asked me to have a rest for a few days from 4 Jul to 6 Jul. I felt a bit better after taking the medicines and the rest, and went back to work on 7 Jul.
I don’t accept the Applicant’s evidence as it contradicts the medical evidence. Dr Rahman’s clinical notes for this visit identify “cholecystitis” as the reason for her visit, and made no mention of any stress, anxiety or depression symptoms, or liver pain. He prescribed her with strong antibiotics and sent her for an abdominal ultrasound and blood test. The medical certificate he gave the Applicant for time off work from 4 to 6 July 2022 describe the Applicant as “suffering from a medical condition and symptoms are still ongoing”. Dr Rahman saw her again on 8 July 2022 to discuss her results, which were “all results normal”.

Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the Applicant’s psychological symptoms began again around 14 July 2022, when she was informed that she would be returning to her substantive position, under her previous manager Ms R, from 25 July 2022. On 13 July 2022 the Applicant attended a regular ‘BOOT12 GV’ meeting via Teams where she later alleged she did not “have a turn to talk about their area” and that Mr S mentioned that she would be returned to her substantive role. She claimed:
I became very anxious and worried about what was going to happen. On that night, I could not get into sleep at all, my body was trembling, liver pain was back again and felt my chest area was heavy.
Mr S’s evidence was that he did not chair the meeting on 13 July 2022, that the Applicant’s colleague provided an update on his tasks, and that the Applicant could have contributed, as all staff were able to, if she ‘raised her hand’ in the virtual meeting. I accept Mr S’s evidence.
Mr S arranged a meeting with the Applicant for the following day. On 14 July 2022 the Applicant met with Mr S via Teams. Her evidence of this meeting, in her Events Statement filed with her workers compensation claim on 8 August 2022, is significant:
[Mr S] had booked a face-to-face meeting with me on 14 Jul to go through next step after the FWC decision. I was sick on the day. [Mr S] said he was ok to meet over Teams. During the meeting, he said my FWC application was dismissed. I need to report back to [Ms R] and continue the Informal Performance Program. I said I was not against reporting back to [Ms R] and continuing the Informal Performance Program. The concerns was I was hurt by the manager relationship with [Ms R] and I was sick again.
I also mentioned to [Mr S] that things had changed dramatically after the FWC application. [Ms R] used to have three team members reporting to her, the other two both left. I am the only one here and I am feeling unwell by thinking to'.report back to her. The staff under her does not stay long. In addition, the new one who was hired to replace the two, is not reporting to [Ms R] anymore but reporting to [Mr S]. [Mr S] said the reason why the new one is not reporting to her because he got a different position title and [Ms R]'s team will be restructured in the future.
I brought attention to [Mr S] regarding to the Informal Performance Program as well that after the FWC application, I had passed FY22 Interim Performance Review and FY22 Annual Performance Review. The FY22 Interim and Annual Performance Review have been attached and marked "E". The two performance reviews had proved that I was able to meet the working expectations. Given the annual performance review just finished in this Jul, why I had to go through another performance review? What was the purpose? He said the work I had done in [Ms L] team was two grades below. That was not right. The reasons were the Assurance work of "TreasuryfTeller One Allowance - Review and remediation" was Assurance work in nature, and it was completed and submitted when I was under [Ms L]. The work of Prove of Concept and the Standard of Procedures for BOOT12 GV application I had done under [Ms L] was aligned with my work level too. Those work were the evidence to prove that I was able to deliver the results according to the standards.
I also asked [Mr S] if it is ok I continue the BOOT12 GV application work under [Ms L]? He said no. The reason he gave was the work of BOOT12 GV is about to finish, which was not true. This is the 1st year BOOT12 is processed in GV and the go live time is Nov/Dec this year. The work is still going on.
[Mr S] insisted to get me report back to [Ms R] and continue the Informal Performance Program. The starting time he gave me was 25 Jul. I was very disappointed that my health and concerns were not considered. I left no choices. I told [Mr S] that if I had to report back to [Ms R], to prevent what had happened and protect my health, there are a few preconditions.
• Assurance work standard policies and procedures to be available before I conduct each of the Assurance task. So, the work will be assessed fairly according to the consistent standards and policies.
• Excel Training. It has been identified that for the Assurance work, we need to use Excel to replicate the payroll calculations which had been processed in Payroll software. To achieve that, advanced excel skills are required and my excel is in intermediate level. I need Excel training to be able to do that. (A similar concern from another employee has been attached and marked "F")
• Contacts of people and payroll services SMEs
• Contacts of payroll system SMEs (Among three team members under [Ms R], both of the other two had payroll system contacts and platform access to acquire the information they need for the assurance work. I worked in CBA for almost 2 years, until now I have not got the same access and contacts.)
The input from the payroll services SMEs and systems SMEs, and maintaining the relationships are part of my role. They were also clearly stated in my position description.
The position description is attached and marked "B".
[Mr S] rejected the preconditions I mentioned above immediately on the day. He asked me to report back to [Ms R] and continue the Informal Performance Program straight away from 25 Jul with no preconditions.
Roughly half of the Applicant’s “Events Statement” is concerned with this meeting of 14 July 2022, demonstrating its significance to the Applicant’s claim for workers compensation. In his statement dated 9 September 2022, Mr S systematically addressed each of the Applicant’s claims made in her Event Statement regarding the content of the meeting on 14 July 2022. I accept Mr S’s evidence where it contradicts with the Applicant’s recollection of what was discussed in that meeting, because it is supported by the follow-up email he sent to the Applicant.
On Friday 15 July 2022 Mr S confirmed the content and outcome of the meeting on 14 July 2022 with the Applicant, via email:
Hi [Applicant],
Thank you for your time yesterday to talk through the next steps.
Now that the Fair Work Commission process has finished and given the outcome of, that process, I confirm we are returning you to your substantive role effective the 25th of July, reporting to [Ms R]. As you have been out of the role for some time, there will be 2 weeks to settle back into the role before continuing the informal performance management process that commenced last year.
In our discussions you raised items that you wanted to be in place prior to your return. We consider you have the resources necessary to perform your substantive role and your peers within the team have been successfully able to perform the role to the standard required with those same resources. As mentioned on the call, we will of course be providing reasonable assistance to you to perform your role to the standard required, and the 2 weeks before you return to informal performance management will enable us to work through any additional assistance that is necessary.
I know from our discussion that you were unsure about whether you wished to return to your substantive role. You said you would come back to me about this by next Friday (22nd of July). To confirm, as discussed, it is not an option for you to remain in the temporary role you have been performing in [Ms L]'s team.
I understand this may be a challenging time and wanted to remind you that the Group's Employee Assistance program is available on 1800 327 222 should you require their support. Note these details have recently changed as we have a new provider.
Contrary to the Applicant’s evidence in her Events Statement, it was not the case that the Applicant was to be immediately returned to the IPMP on her return to her substantive role. The evidence demonstrates that Mr S took into account the Applicant’s concerns about her role, and offered her both assistance and a reasonable time period in which to adjust back to her substantive role, before recommencing the IPMP.
The Applicant took prearranged annual leave from 18 to 22 July 2022. On 20 July 2022 the Applicant saw Dr Rahman and from the clinical records of that visit, it appears that the Applicant had decided that she needed to make a claim for workers compensation. He certified her as unfit to work from 18 July 2022 to 29 July 2022.
On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is no coincidence that the Applicant’s claim for workers compensation was made just a few days later on 8 August 2022. I find that the Respondent’s request for the Applicant to return to her substantive position by 25 July 2022 caused the onset of the Applicant’s psychological symptoms at that time and significantly contributed to the Applicant’s psychiatric condition. The extent of those symptoms and the intensity of that psychiatric condition is accepted by the Respondent, and is expressed and supported by the medical evidence of Dr Mouawad and the psychiatrists the Applicant subsequently saw for the purposes of her claim.
The Tribunal therefore needs to determine whether that requirement for the Applicant to return to her substantive role by 25 July 2022 was:
(a)Reasonable administrative action; and
(b)Taken in a reasonable manner.
The Applicant submitted that this was not reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner because:
I explained my concerns about not being emotionally well and had been treated unfairly. I told him I was worried my mental health would be worsened. I requested some safeguards but all had been rejected. [Mr S] enforced me to report back to [Ms R] from the 25th of July 2022.
There were no improvements, changes or corrective action implemented as a result of my health condition, or to address the concerns raised. Instead, once the FWC application was dismissed, I was forced to report back to [Ms R] with no considerations or improvements made to avoid the risk of my health being impacted again.
… As an employee I have the right to work in a safe work environment.
Without considering the safety of my working environment and mental health conditions, [Mr S] went ahead and forced me report me back to [Ms R], which triggered extreme fear in my brain and made me feel totally hopeless.
[Mr S] did not try to prevent further bullying and did not take reasonable steps to eliminate or minimize my health and safety risks. His action was not a reasonable Administrative Action and had not been done in a reasonable manner.
Reasonable Administrative Action
The Respondent submitted that the requirement for the Applicant to return to her substantive position:
…was clearly action of an administrative, rather than merely operational, nature taken in respect of [the Applicant’s] employment since it applied only to her and went to the position she was to occupy and the entirety of the duties she would perform, i.e., the very basis of her employment with the respondent.
I agree with that submission and find that the requirement to return the Applicant to her position was administrative action. The facts in Comcare v Martin are analogous to those in these proceedings. There, the High Court noted that the purpose of the exclusion contained in s 5A of the SRC Act is to ‘ensure that the wide range of legitimate human resource management actions, when undertaken in a reasonable manner, do not give rise to eligibility for workers’ compensation’ and to prevent claims ‘being used to obstruct legitimate management action by excluding claims where an injury (usually a psychological injury) has arisen as a result of’ such action. In these proceedings the Respondent’s conduct was undoubtedly administrative action of the type envisaged by s 5A of the SRC Act, and the causal connection clarified in Comcare v Martin is met, because the evidence demonstrates that Applicant would not have suffered from her injury, but for that administrative action.
On the question of whether it was reasonable, the Respondent submitted that it was not unreasonable in circumstances where it was the Applicant’s substantive position; she had been informed that her move to [Ms L]’s team was temporary, to allow her complaints against Ms R and Mr S to be investigated and the Fair Work Commission proceedings to be finalized; her complaints were not upheld internally or by the Fair Work Commission; the temporary position was two grades lower than her substantive position and she had continued to be paid at her substantive position level. I accept that those were the relevant circumstances from the Respondent’s perspective, but need to consider the Applicant’s circumstances to determine whether they were reasonable.
At the time that the Respondent took the administrative action to return the Applicant to her substantive position, the Respondent had no evidence that the Applicant was suffering from any psychological symptoms, let alone a psychiatric condition that was caused or contributed to by her workplace. Contrary to the Applicant’s submissions, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that she discussed with Mr S that she believed a return to her substantive position was putting her in an unsafe work environment, or that she was suffering any psychological symptoms as a result which required her to seek treatment. Her medical certificate of 20 July 2022 from Dr Rahman refers only to “medical condition and symptoms”.
Mr S confirmed in his statement of 9 September 2022 that he had not been informed by the Applicant of any specific health concerns:
However, there was no medical evidence provided. Only the standard medical certificates for any time off incurred, which did not specify the reasons for her absence from work.
I find that if she had raised her psychological symptoms or any other specific safety or health concerns with the Respondent, Mr S would have referred to them in his follow-up email of 15 July 2022 or would have otherwise made a record that the Applicant had raised those issues. However, the first notification the Respondent had of any psychological condition relevant to her workplace was in the Applicant’s workers’ compensation claim submitted on 8 August 2022, 3 weeks after she was informed that the Respondent intended to return her to her substantive position. I therefore find that the Respondent’s decision to return the Applicant to her substantive position from 25 July 2022 was reasonable.
Even if I am wrong on the evidence, and the Applicant had raised concerns about her mental health in the meeting of 14 July 2022, I find that the Respondent’s decision was reasonable because the Fair Work Commission proceedings had found that that the Applicant was not being subjected to bullying by Ms R, and the conduct she complained about was found to be reasonable management. On the Applicant’s own evidence, she was “not against reporting back to [Ms R] and continuing the Informal Performance Program”. It was therefore reasonable, in accordance with the circumstances outlined at [‎130] above, that the Applicant should be returned to her substantive position.
Taken in a reasonable manner
The evidence demonstrates that the Applicant was not immediately required to return to her substantive position, and was provided support for that process. Mr S informed her that she would be required to recommence her substantive role on 25 July 2022 after returning from leave. It is clear from the email of 15 July 2022 that in the meeting of 14 July 2022 the Applicant was given an opportunity to consider the requirement to return to her substantive role over the course of a week and inform Mr S, by 22 July 2022, whether she was prepared to comply.
In his statement, Mr S said:
When the FWC Decision was issued, it was considered appropriate to have [TQJY] return to her substantive position, reporting back to [Ms R]. This was on the basis that the FWC dismissed [TQJY]'s bullying allegations and confirmed that "reasonable management action" was taken to address the performance concerns identified. Refer to Attachment C (which includes multiple supporting artefacts).
This decision was also made in consultation with workplace relations and employment legal to confirm the approach before I had the conversation with her.
[TQJY] did indicate to me that she was concerned, however, I reiterated that we would give her two weeks to settle into the role before any continuation of the informal performance management process. As with any process, we look to provide guidance and support to lift performance to a standard expected of anyone in the role, which I advised her of. These are ordinary conversations which I am expected to have with all employees. Noting that we are still at the informal performance management stage.
The email of 15 July 2022 confirms that the Applicant was to be given 2 weeks to readjust to her substantive role before the IPMP was recommenced, and offered support in that process:
As mentioned on the call, we will of course be providing reasonable assistance to you to perform your role to the standard required, and the 2 weeks before you return to informal performance management will enable us to work through any additional assistance that is necessary.
The Applicant submitted that the Respondent was not acting in a reasonable manner because her “concerns were disregarded”. The email of 15 July 2022 demonstrates that the Respondent took into account the Applicant’s concerns as they were then raised, which was to the effect that she wanted certain ‘preconditions’, described later in her Events Statement, to be implemented. These were:
I told [Mr S] that if I had to report back to [Ms R], to prevent what had happened and protect my health, there are a few preconditions.
• Assurance work standard policies and procedures to be available before I conduct each of the Assurance task. So, the work will be assessed fairly according to the consistent standards and policies.
• Excel Training. It has been identified that for the Assurance work, we need to use Excel to replicate the payroll calculations which had been processed in Payroll software. To achieve that, advanced excel skills are required and my excel is in intermediate level. I need Excel training to be able to do that. (A similar concern from another employee has been attached and marked "F")
• Contacts of people and payroll services SMEs
• Contacts of payroll system SMEs (Among three team members under [Ms R], both of the other two had payroll system contacts and platform access to acquire the information they need for the assurance work. I worked in CBA for almost 2 years, until now I have not got the same access and contacts.)
In his statement dated 9 September 2022, Mr S provided the Tribunal with reasons why these ‘preconditions’ were not necessary for the Applicant to do her job:
It was determined that those items were not necessary for [TQJY] to re-commence her substantive role. This was because [Ms R] had already provided everything
necessary for her to perform her substantive role. Furthermore, her peers were able to successfully deliver on the requirements associated with the role, to the standards required, without these additional items in place.
In the email of 15 July 2022, these reasons were expressed to the Applicant:
In our discussions you raised items that you wanted to be in place prior to your return. We consider you have the resources necessary to perform your substantive role and your peers within the team have been successfully able to perform the role to the standard required with those same resources.
The Respondent’s rejection of the Applicant’s ‘preconditions’ does not demonstrate a disregard for her concerns or any unreasonableness.
The evidence demonstrates that the Respondent’s reasonable administrative action to return the Applicant to her substantive position from 25 July 2022 was communicated clearly to the Applicant. The Respondent sought feedback from the Applicant in relation to the decision and considered the concerns she raised with Mr S. The Applicant was going to be given a reasonable period of time to adjust back to her role, and was offered support. The reasonable administrative action was therefore taken in a reasonable manner. It was also administrative action which was taken in respect of the Applicant’s employment, directed specifically to the Applicant and her role in the workplace.

I therefore find that the Applicant’s injury is not compensable pursuant to s 5A(1) of the SRC Act.
CONCLUSION
I have found that the first manifestation of the Applicant’s psychological symptoms and her date of injury was 6 November 2021. As discussed at paragraphs [‎85] and [‎86] above, the Applicant’s own evidence demonstrates that the cause of those symptoms was the fear that she would be returned to Ms R’s supervision and management.
For the duration of her Fair Work Commission proceedings, until after the decision was delivered, the Applicant remained under the supervision of [Ms L], not Ms R. According to the evidence before the Tribunal, she was relatively symptom-free during the period between the hearing of those proceedings until after the decision was delivered on 28 June 2022. The event which “triggered” her psychological symptoms following the Fair Work Commission decision was the Respondent’s decision to return her to her substantive position, reporting to Ms R again, communicated to her on 14 July 2022.
To the extent the Fair Work Commission proceedings caused, contributed to or impacted the Applicant’s symptoms or psychiatric condition, they are excluded from compensation under the SRC Act: Re Hutchinson and Comcare [2018] AATA 4357 at [114] – [122], citing Kirkpatrick v Commonwealth of Australia (1985) 62 ALR 533 at 537 – 538; Australian Telecommunications Commission v Tzikas (1985) 5 AAR 173, at 195.
The Respondent’s decision to return the Applicant to her substantive position and Ms R’s supervision and management, following the Fair Work Commission decision, was reasonable administrative action taken in respect of the Applicant’s employment. The evidence demonstrates that the reasonable administrative action was taken in a reasonable manner.
CORRECT AND PREFERABLE
The Tribunal’s task is to determine the correct and preferable decision on the evidence and submissions before it.
The Respondent’s Reviewable Decision of 14 December 2022 determined that liability for the Applicant’s injury is excluded under section 5A(1) of the SRC Act as it is suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner.
I have come to the same conclusion, albeit for different reasons. The Reviewable Decision considered the following actions to have been taken on reasonable grounds and in a reasonable manner with respect to the Applicant’s employment:
(a)The allocation of the BW Ops task given to her in May 2021;
(b)Performance and Feedback discussion conducted on 23 July 2021 and subsequent emails regarding performance issues;
(c)The decision to place her on an informal performance plan on 4 August 2021;
(d)The Teams meeting with Mr S on 6 August 2021;
(e)Internal grievance investigations and notification of outcomes in August 2021;
(f)The regular BOOT12 GV meeting on 13 July 2022;
(g)Teams meeting on 14 July 2022 with Mr S;
(h)Being assigned to chair the Governance and Assurance team meeting.
I have found that the two events which caused or contributed to the Applicant’s injury were the belief the Applicant formed around 6 November 2021, after preparing her statement in the Fair Work Commission proceedings, that she would be returned to the supervision of Ms R; and the decision by the Respondent (and its communication to her by Mr S on 14 July 2022) to return the Applicant to her substantive role and the supervision of Ms R.
The correct and preferable decision is therefore to affirm the Respondent’s Reviewable Decision of 14 December 2022, in accordance with these reasons for decision.
With respect to the 2023 Reviewable Decision, there is no entitlement to compensation pursuant to ss 24 and 27 of the SRC Act if there is no liability for a compensable injury pursuant to s 14 of the SRC Act. The correct and preferable decision is for the Tribunal to affirm that decision, for the same reasons given as the Respondent in its reasons dated 10 October 2023.
ORDERS
The Respondent’s reviewable decisions of 14 December 2022 (2022/10496) and 10 October 2023 (2024/0795) are each affirmed.

Date(s) of hearing: 28-30 July 2025, 7 August 2025, 21 August 2025

Date final submissions received: 24 October 2025

Solicitors for the Applicant: Applicant self-represented

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Counsel for the Respondent:

Commonwealth Bank Legal

Brendan Kelly

Date(s) of hearing:	28-30 July 2025, 7 August 2025, 21 August 2025
Date final submissions received:	24 October 2025
Solicitors for the Applicant:	Applicant self-represented
Solicitors for the Respondent: Counsel for the Respondent:	Commonwealth Bank Legal Brendan Kelly