Asraf and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 1144 | Case summary

Asraf and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 1144 | Case summary | Zoe

As can be seen, the doctor noted Mrs Asraf presented 'with PTSD' and the reason for her visit was 'Post-traumatic stress'. It is not clear if Dr Nguyen conducted a mental state examination in order to formulate a diagnosis of any mental ailment Mrs Asraf was experiencing. He did not note any such examination but recorded post-traumatic stress as the reason for the consultation. On his notes, it is likely 'PTSD' was a term Mrs Asraf used to describe her symptoms and the reason for her visit. The doctor was not called to give oral evidence so it was not possible to clarify this point with him.
In any event, Dr Nguyen issued a medical certificate in which he recorded the diagnosis of "Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder" and stated Mrs Asraf was unfit for work from 6 September 2021 to 20 September 2021.[4] In all likelihood, the account Mrs Asraf gave on 6 September 2021 informed Dr Nguyen's reference to a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder in the medical certificate he issued and the terms of his referral of Mrs Asraf to the Blacktown Psychology Centre for treatment, in which he referred to her being "abused from a male customer- who was verbally abusive and physically aggressive toward her".[5]
On 7 September 2021, ANZ provided information to Mrs Asraf in respect of claiming compensation.[6]
On 8 September 2021, Mrs Asraf lodged a claim for compensation.[7]
In a subsequent consultation with Mrs Asraf on 15 September 2021, Dr Nguyen did not refer to post-traumatic stress disorder, but diagnosed 'insomnia' and noted Mrs Asraf was still suffering with stress from the incident and she had a problem sleeping. He prescribed a trial of melatonin.[8]
Mrs Asraf consulted Dr Nguyen on 18 September 2021 and 21 September 2021, but the clinical notes of these consultations do not refer to any psychological symptoms or other alleged effects of the incident on 30 August 2021.
On 20 September 2021, in a telehealth consultation, Mrs Asraf consulted Dr Eric Lim, a general practitioner in the Workers Doctors practice (also known as Wyong Doctors) for the first time. It is not clear if Dr Lim conducted a mental state examination of Mrs Asraf and, if so, what the examination involved. It is likely Dr Lim relied on what he was told by Mrs Asraf. Dr Lim referred Mrs Asraf for psychological therapy and to Dr David Kumagaya, a psychiatrist. Dr Lim noted:

Psychological History > > Dates, timeline of stressors: > > Mrs Asraf reflected that she commenced working with ANZ as a banking consultant in 2018 on a part time basis four (4) days per week, seven (7) hours per day. Mrs Asraf explained that on 30th Ausgust 2021 she was at her branch in Blacktown when a customer requested service. There were current covid restrictions in place and the customer was informed by Mrs Asraf that she was unable to serve him as he was not from the same Local Government Area. The client became irate and leant towards Mrs Asraf in attempt to punch her in the face. He continued to scream and push against the entrance door preventing Mrs Asraf to close it. Mrs Asraf noted that there was no security guard on duty on that particular day and that she was experiencing extreme fear. She noted that a colleague came over to assist her with closing the door so that the abusive client could not enter. Mrs Asraf explained that she continued working for the rest of the day. Mrs Asraf explained that she filled out an incident report and called her manager on 30th August 2021. Mrs Asraf noted that approximately three (3) days later she was unable to attend work due to the experience of nightmares and flashbacks regarding the incident as well as sleep disturbance. Mrs Asraf explained that her last day of work was 1st September 2021. > > Dates, Onset of Psych Issues: > > Mrs Asraf noted a deterioration in her mental state characterised by intrusive and unwanted memories as well as flashbacks to the perpetrator lunging towards her face and attempting to hit her. Mrs Asraf noted anxious and depressive cognitions, rumination and irritability regarding the possibility she may have been stabbed as well as the unanswered question regarding why there was no security guard at her place of work. Mrs Asraf noted avoidance of social interactions and being unable to communicate with her children as well as hypervigilance and nausea. Mrs Asraf noted anergia from sleep disturbance and hypervigilance > > ... > > Mrs Asraf in unfit for any work duties > > Diagnosis > > Post Traumatic Stress Disorder > > Symptoms > > Current Signs and symptoms: > > Intrusive and unwanted memories as well as flashbacks to the perpetrator lunging towards her face and attempting to hit her. Mrs Asraf noted anxious and depressive cognitions, rumination and irritability regarding the possibility she may have been stabbed as well as the unanswered question regarding why there was no security guard at her place of work. Mrs Asraf noted avoidance of social interactions and being unable to communicate with her children as well as hypervigilance and nausea. Mrs Asraf noted anergia from sleep disturbance and hypervigilance > > Return to work barriers > > Issues affecting return to work: > > Mrs Asraf has lost confidence in her abilities to perform work duties. She has lost trust in her work environment to ensure her safety. Mrs Asraf noted suffering with anergia secondary to hypervigilance and sleep disturbance[10]

Mrs Asraf is employed as a Banking Consultant with ANZ and reported "on 30 August 2021 there was a client from a different local government area when we checked his driver's licence and when I told him I couldn't serve him he started screaming abuse straight in my face and then he launched himself at me and I thought he was going to punch me in the face and I was trying to close the door but he was too strong." > > The Supervisor had then come out with hearing the commotion and went to talk to the client and "I said to him he should have called the Police but he said not to worry about it and that I didn't need to fill out the incident form and I said he should have a Security Guard as there had been a lot of abuse which he had organised for the following day." > > Mrs Asraf had continued working following the incident however "I was upset and nauseated and I felt embarrassed and the Supervisor didn't ask me how I was and I felt let down and not supported and it should not have happened to me as there should have been a Guard as my workplace was not a safe place". > > Mrs Asraf had not slept that night and has spoken with EAP and then consulted her General Practitioner and she was placed on WorkCover leave. > > Mrs Asraf reported "I see the man in my face all the time now because of his abuse and how aggressive he was and I am dreaming about it and I am sweating and I have palpitations and I wake up every hour and I'm not sleeping." > > ... "my family are upset with me because I am so irritable and I am having outbursts at my family and I don't care about things like I did before and I don't have interest in doing things and I am a different person now and I feel my life has been ruined." > > ... > > There is fear of being followed by the client and "he could even know where I live and when it happened he told me to call the Police as he didn't care and he said I didn't know what he could do and that he needed the money and I had to give it to him and I felt very threatened." > > Mrs Asraf is not driving as "I feel very unsafe as I think he might be following me and I can't go anywhere by myself and it's like I don't have any freedom now and I can't even go to see my four grandchildren now."[13]

ANZ submits Mrs Asraf's evidence should not be relied upon as she is not a witness of truth. ANZ argues Mrs Asraf's claims for compensation are infected by malingering and she gave false or exaggerated accounts of what occurred in the incident on 30 August 2021 to doctors and therapists she consulted or who examined her.
The trajectory of Mrs Asraf's compensation claims proceeds, so the argument goes, on the basis of alleged worsening symptoms and increasing disability despite contrary evidence, including video footage of the 30 August 2021 incident. In ANZ's submission, Mrs Asraf's claims in respect of PTSD symptoms and other alleged effects of the 30 August 2021 incident are contradicted by medical evidence, surveillance video evidence and the evidence of witnesses. ANZ contends Mrs Asraf consulted doctors and other therapists in support of her compensation claims rather than to obtain treatment for real symptoms of a psychiatric disorder, and she rejected all rehabilitation.
In ANZ's submission, Mrs Asraf's evidence and all the medical evidence which relies on the veracity of accounts she has given, including reports by treating doctors, psychologists and medical experts, is not reliable and it should be given no weight.
Mrs Asraf staunchly maintains the truth of her claims and asserts the veracity of her evidence. She argues this is demonstrated by her work-caused disabilities consequent to the injury she suffered on 30 August 2021 to which members of her family attest. In her submission, the video footage of the 30 August 2021 incident is deficient as it does not contain audio recording of what transpired. She argues the surveillance materials provide no more than a snapshot of moments in time when she was engaging in family activities in order to maintain family relationships, under pressure or to keep up appearances. None of this, she alleges, is inconsistent with the evidence of family members and the medical evidence which supports her claims.
It is Mrs Asraf's submission that her PTSD symptoms affect her memory and her cognitive functioning, and this explains her difficulty remembering things under cross-examination and any inconsistencies in her evidence.
Mrs Asraf asserts she is a truthful person who is well respected in her community, who has been poorly treated and harassed by ANZ. She contends her life has been ruined and the allegations levelled against her truthfulness are unjustified, hurtful and wrong.
Such matters turn on objective assessment of the evidence,[105] in which Mrs Asraf's demeanour when giving evidence plays little part. It is no more possible for me to determine the truth of Mrs Asraf's evidence on the basis of her appearance than it is possible to determine the content of her mind from her complexion or her look. The risk of proceeding on such an 'uncertain touchstone of reliability'[106] is greatly increased in the context of mental illness. Atkin LJ's pithy observation in Société d'Avances Commerciales (Société Anonyme Egyptienne) v Merchants' Marine Insurance Co (The "Palitana") (1924) 20 Ll L Rep 140 at [152] is apposite:

There are a number of things to say about Mrs Asraf's evidence.
Mrs Asraf gave sworn evidence, having made an affirmation her evidence will be true. This notwithstanding, the reliability of her evidence is affected by a number of factors.
Firstly, Mrs Asraf allegedly experienced difficulty remembering details of her life, circumstances and events. On more than 300 occasions during her cross-examination, Mrs Asraf alleged she could not remember or did not know details of her life and circumstances. Her lapses of memory included matters established by objective evidence, such as details of her employment history and substantial financial transactions, including large deposits and withdrawals from her bank account. It extended to matters relating to medical treatment, whether she has lodged an application under the National Disability Insurance Scheme, the content of written statements she has provided, family financial circumstances and domestic arrangements.
Mrs Asraf's alleged difficulties remembering relevant information when giving oral evidence raise serious questions about the veracity of information she provided in written statements in support of her compensation claims, or when giving historical accounts and answering questions put to her by doctors from whom she obtained treatment or who prepared reports for the purposes of these proceedings. Mrs Asraf asserts the contents of her written statements are true, and she was entirely honest with doctors she consulted or who examined her. This does not square with the gaps in her memory when giving oral evidence. It assumes Mrs Asraf was able to remember relevant details when making such statements or when providing such histories, even though she could not remember those details when giving oral evidence. It is conceivable Mrs Asraf was able to refer to documents when preparing her written statements and matters of detail which she asserts now elude her memory might have been obtained in that manner, but the same cannot be said of the histories she provided doctors who treated or examined her.
While one can accept the memory of a witness might be affected by the stress of giving oral evidence and being cross-examined on matters of detail, and this might be accentuated by the presence of mental illness, Mrs Asraf's faulty memory also smacks of convenience: she was better able to recall matters consistent with and likely to support her claims, such as alleged details in the incident on 30 August 2021, than matters which are inconsistent with and likely to undermine her claims, such as family holidays and events, responsibility for large financial transactions, ownership of assets, information provided to Centrelink and previous domestic arrangements.
Secondly, elements of Ms Asraf's evidence are implausible. For example, she alleged she requires 7 days of home care support as there is "near an acre lawn mowing", but the objective evidence establishes Mrs Asraf's house is on a 624 square metre lot.[107] Mrs Asraf's allegation that family members, particularly Mr Asraf and a daughter Neeloufar Asraf (Ms Asraf) who reside with Mrs Asraf, have been unable to provide household and attendant care services due to the lifting of Covid-19 public health restrictions and their return to employment is implausible. The relevant Covid-19 public health orders ended on 11 October 2021 and Mrs Asraf informed her treating doctors in 2022 she relied on family members, particularly Mr Asraf, for support. Mr Asraf gave evidence he retired from his plumbing business in 2022 and worked on an occasional or part-time 'on-call' basis thereafter.
Mrs Asraf alleges she took medications, including fluoxetine from 29 November 2021, prescribed as treatment for her alleged anxiety disorder. The contemporaneous evidence suggests she did not disclose details of these medications when her medication prescriptions were reviewed by Dr Prasad in September and November 2022. At the time, Dr Prasad noted Mrs Asraf was prescribed 11 different medications for a variety of ailments,[108] including 7 medications prescribed by Dr Nguyen,[109] without reference to fluoxetine. The proposition Dr Prasad might not have recorded all the medications she was taking when reviewing her prescriptions, in which the potential for adverse pharmacological interactions between medications would have been a relevant consideration, is implausible. It is possible Mrs Asraf did not disclose her prescription of fluoxetine to Dr Prasad because he was her 'knee injury doctor', but this is also implausible as Dr Prasad recorded medications prescribed to treat diabetes, gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and asthma, unrelated to Mrs Asraf's knee ailment. It is also quite clear Mrs Asraf consulted Dr Prasad for treatment of ailments unrelated to any knee condition, such as on 22 June 2022.[110] It is conceivable Mrs Asraf did not consider it necessary to disclose her fluoxetine prescription to Dr Prasad, but the plausibility of this is questionable as the contemporaneous medical records suggest Mrs Asraf was not backwards in raising issues relating to symptoms of the various conditions for which she was being treated, including diabetes, gastro-intestinal reflux disease, asthma and osteoarthritis, and in this context it is probable she was acutely aware of the importance of managing the medications she was taking.
Mrs Asraf alleges she sustained a right knee injury in the shower on 16 December 2022 as a result of her alleged PTSD. Later that day, she attended an appointment with a psychologist at 1:00pm in the context of her claimed anxiety disorder injury. Mrs Asraf did not disclose she had suffered a right knee injury earlier that day even though a daily walking goal was discussed. Initially, Mrs Asraf gave evidence she could not remember these events and, when pressed, she admitted to remembering the events and explained Dr Prasad is her 'knee injury doctor' and she would not disclose a knee injury to her 'PTSD doctor' (Workers Doctors). This is implausible. On 23 January 2023, Ms Asraf alleges she suffered another right knee injury as a result of PTSD about which she consulted Dr Prasad. It was on 23 January 2023 ANZ decided to cease compensation payments to Mrs Asraf. Dr Prasad's clinical notes of this consultation refer to a 2-day history of swelling in the right calf and knee and the possibility of cellulitis, but they do not refer to any alleged right knee injury.[111] The proposition the doctor failed to record a right knee injury Mrs Asraf allegedly suffered that day is implausible. Mrs Asraf's allegation of a right knee injury on the day ANZ stopped paying her compensation reinforces the importance of corroborative evidence.
Mrs Asraf gave evidence that, following ANZ's decision to cease payment of compensation on 23 January 2023, she could not afford to attend psychological counselling treatment for her alleged anxiety disorder, but her bank records objectively reveal large balances and large transactions which, in all likelihood, related to the purchase and sale of real estate properties and luxury vehicles. Mrs Asraf's assertion she was unable to afford psychological counselling is implausible. This is reinforced by Mrs Asraf admitting she obtained a superannuation lump sum on the ground of total and permanent disablement, a process which she commenced in early 2022, and her evidence she is in receipt of Jobseeker Payment from Centrelink.
Thirdly, Mrs Asraf's evidence evolved in response to questions. For example, she stated before the 30 August 2021 incident she "did all my domestic duties" and afterwards, because of PTSD, she "couldn't do anything" and hired AK Lawnmowing and Gardening Services (AK Lawnmowing) to "do the vacuuming, cleaning and meal preparation", although she was helping with some household duties up to December 2022.[112] This evidence aligns with contemporaneous medical records which noted related information provided by Mrs Asraf. When pressed on these matters under cross-examination, Mrs Asraf explained AK Lawnmowing was engaged in December 2022 and Saban Graham had been hired to provide the household services after the 30 August 2021 incident. When further pressed, Mrs Asraf conceded that Ms Graham had provided household services for several years prior to the 30 August 2021 incident.
Mrs Asraf gave evidence she has been unable to deal with financial matters, including paying bills, since 31 August 2021, and she relies on Mr Asraf and her daughter, Ms Asraf, to do so. She explained she could not recall details of financial arrangements or transactions. Mrs Asraf was cross-examined on the contents of bank records she provided, including in respect of substantial deposits and withdrawals, and recurring deposits recorded as 'Centrelink pension'. She explained that in her family and culture, financial arrangements are intertwined and she could not recall the details. When pressed, she explained that many of the transactions are likely in respect of property acquisitions and sales, and property rentals, even though the properties are not in her name. She alleged she could not recall who owned the properties at any point in time but thought they might be in the names of Mr Asraf, Ms Asraf or other family members who each have separate bank accounts. When pressed to explain Centrelink deposits in her bank records, she explained these were rental payments by tenants of investment properties through Centrelink. When pressed to explain these arrangements, she explained she had provided all her relevant bank records in response to the formal requirement from ANZ to do so, but she had not provided records for accounts held by or with other family members as doing so would breach their privacy. When further pressed, Mrs Asraf admitted she had another bank account into which her personal Centrelink Jobseeker payments were made, but she omitted to provide records of this account to ANZ or the Tribunal.
Mrs Asraf's evidence about significant financial transactions also evolved as the evidence came out. Initially she gave evidence she denied knowledge of a cash withdrawal of $145,000 from her bank account. She explained she did not make the withdrawal and her husband was not authorised to withdraw such a sum without her being present. When closely examined on this point, she changed her evidence and explained her husband was authorised and the money was likely used to purchase a Porsche motor car, which she denied driving. When further pressed, she explained that the Porsche motor car was subsequently sold and a further Porsche motor car was purchased for an amount of $225,000, which she also denied driving. Despite her evidence she has never driven the Porsche motor vehicles, Mrs Asraf obtained and annually renews a disability parking permit. When pressed on this point, Mrs Asraf could not remember the basis on which she qualified for a disability parking permit.
Mrs Asraf's evidence in respect of her alleged right knee injury on 16 December 2022 evolved under cross-examination. Initially, Mrs Asraf stated she could not recall what occurred. When pressed she explained she would not discuss a right knee injury with her 'PTSD doctor' or psychologist at Workers Doctors. When further pressed, she admitted she could remember what occurred and, when the psychologist discussed a goal of walking 100 metres, Mrs Asraf did not mention the alleged knee injury because she did not consider it was serious and thought that it would get better.
Fourthly, aspects of Mrs Asraf's evidence are inconsistent with sworn evidence of family members, including Mr Asraf and Ms Asraf. For example, Mrs Asraf gave evidence her daughter (Ms Asraf) assisted her to complete Centrelink Jobseeker application forms including information about income and assets, but Ms Asraf did not recall doing so. Mrs Asraf provided a statement purportedly signed by Ms Asraf. When this was put to Ms Asraf in cross-examination, she denied knowledge of the document and, when shown the document, she denied the signature is her signature. Quite clearly, the document is a fabrication.
Mrs Asraf initially denied that Saban Graham provided household services prior to the incident on 30 August 2021.[113] She explained Ms Graham provided household and attendant care services for 8 hours per week after the 30 August 2021 incident, for which she was paid $2,208 in 12week blocks. Mr Asraf gave evidence that Ms Graham had provided such services for more than 20 years. Ms Asraf explained that Ms Graham had been a long-term cleaner. When pressed on these matters, Mrs Asraf admitted Ms Graham had been a cleaner for several years prior to the 30 August 2021 incident. When pressed further, she admitted Ms Graham had been provided with a flight from Fiji, but this was not to accompany her replacement MN to travel to Mrs Asraf's premises in Sydney and it was a simple coincidence that they travelled to Sydney on the same flight. On Mr Asraf's evidence, Ms Graham had provided household services to the Asraf family for approximately 20 years.
Fifthly, Mrs Asraf provided varying accounts of the incident on 30 August 2021 which do not align with the objective contemporaneous evidence. On close examination of the accounts she has given, additional factual allegations have emerged over time.
Mrs Asraf's initial account of the incident on 30 August 2021 described the bank customer as very aggressive, swearing, banging on the door, restricting closure of the door, approaching Mrs Asraf and threatening her. It is not clear if the threatening conduct she reported refers to actual threats made by the bank customer or to Mrs Asraf's perception the bank customer's conduct was threatening or intimidating. On 6 September 2021, it is likely Dr Nguyen noted what Mrs Asraf said of the 30 August 2021 incident, namely that the bank customer was screaming and nearly hit her.
The incident was captured in the video recording in evidence. The interaction between Mrs Asraf and the bank customer can be observed in detail. It can be seen there were other customers and bank staff present at the time. Even though those present were wearing facial masks to protect against Covid infection, their reaction to the interaction between Mrs Asraf and the bank customer is not consistent with what one would expect if the bank customer was threatening to punch or even kill Mrs Asraf and members of her family, as she alleges. Those present can be seen to briefly look toward Mrs Asraf and the bank customer. Their response is momentary and without apparent alarm. Nevertheless, the bank customer appears irate, and he attempted to throw open the plastic concertina door when addressing Mrs Asraf. A male bank worker intervened and escorted the bank customer away from the concertina partition, and presumably from the branch. It can also be clearly seen that Mrs Asraf briefly walked towards the rear of the bank branch immediately after the interaction. What she did there, out of view of the camera, cannot be seen. She was gone for approximately 30 seconds and returned to her duties without evident upset or difficulty. She continued with her usual duties and engaged in private activities later that day. This does not align with Mrs Asraf's assertion that she was very upset and crying after the incident.
Mrs Asraf viewed the video recording for the first time during cross-examination. She watched it without any visible reaction. When closely examined about the content of the video and her assertion of being very upset and crying, she explained she was crying inside. That might be so, but it did not appear to interfere with her behaviour or her resumption of work duties without apparent difficulty or upset.
There is no audio recording to accompany the video recording. Consequently, it is not possible to accurately gauge what was said during the interaction, or the volume or force with which it was said. Mrs Asraf's assertion the bank customer aggressively screamed threats and abuse at her, and attempted to punch her in the face, does not align with what can be seen in the video recording. The reactions of those present are not consistent with what one might reasonably expect if the bank customer was shouting or screaming abuse at Mrs Asraf, threatening to kill her and attempting to punch her in the face or violently assault her, as she alleges. The minor reactions of those present are more consistent with the response to witnessing an altercation in which the bank customer became frustrated or annoyed on being refused entry before being assisted to depart, as can be seen in the video recording.
Most importantly for present purposes, Mrs Asraf's initial account is not entirely consistent with the subsequent accounts she has given of the incident to doctors she consulted, complaining of post-traumatic stress disorder and related symptoms, from whom she subsequently sought treatment or who examined her for medico-legal purposes.
These considerations raise serious concerns about the reliability of Mrs Asraf's evidence, including accounts she has given to doctors and psychologists. There are also serious concerns about the reliability of supporting evidence given by family members and Ms N on which she relies.
For this reason, Mrs Asraf's evidence on controversial matters must be approached with caution and, where it is not supported by reliable corroborative evidence of probative value, her evidence should not be relied upon and given weight.

(1) Subject to subsection (5), where, as a result of an injury (other than a catastrophic injury) to an employee, the employee obtains household services that he or she reasonably requires, Comcare is liable to pay compensation of such amount per week as Comcare considers reasonable in the circumstances, being not less than 50% of the amount per week paid or payable by the employee for those services nor more than $200. > > (2) Without limiting the matters that Comcare may take into account in determining the household services that are reasonably required in a particular case, Comcare shall, in making such a determination, have regard to the following matters: > > (a) the extent to which household services were provided by the employee before the date of the injury and the extent to which he or she is able to provide those services after that date; > > (b) the number of persons living with the employee as members of his or her household, their ages and their need for household services; > > (c) the extent to which household services were provided by the persons referred to in paragraph (b) before the injury; > > (d) the extent to which the persons referred to in paragraph (b), or any other members of the employee's family, might reasonably be expected to provide household services for themselves and for the employee after the injury; > > (e) the need to avoid substantial disruption to the employment or other activities of the persons referred to in paragraph (b). > > Note: In relation to paragraph (2)(d), see also subsection 4(2). > > (3) Where, as a result of an injury (other than a catastrophic injury) to an employee, the employee obtains attendant care services that he or she reasonably requires, Comcare is liable to pay compensation of: > > (a) $200 per week; or > > (b) an amount per week equal to the amount per week paid or payable by the employee for those services; > > whichever is less. > > (4) Without limiting the matters that Comcare may take into account in determining the attendant care services that are reasonably required in a particular case, Comcare shall, in making such a determination, have regard to the following matters: > > (a) the nature of the employee's injury and the degree to which that injury impairs his or her ability to provide for his or her personal care; > > (b) the extent to which any medical service or nursing care received by the employee provides for his or her essential and regular personal care; > > (c) the extent to which it is reasonable to meet any wish by the employee to live outside an institution; > > (d) the extent to which attendant care services are necessary to enable the employee to undertake or continue employment; > > (e) any assessment made in relation to the rehabilitation of the employee; > > (f) the extent to which a relative of the employee might reasonably be expected to provide attendant care services. > > Note: In relation to paragraph (4)(f), see also subsection 4(2). > > (5) Comcare is not liable to pay compensation under subsection (1) in respect of any week within the period of 28 days beginning on the date of the injury unless Comcare determines otherwise in a particular case on the ground of financial hardship or the need to provide for adequate supervision of dependent children. > > (6) An amount of compensation payable by Comcare under subsection (1) or (3) is payable: > > (a) where the employee has paid for the household services or attendant care services, as the case may be - to the employee; or > > (b) in any other case - to the person who provided those services. > > (7) Where Comcare pays an amount to a person who provided household services or attendant care services to an employee, the payment of the amount is, to the extent of the payment, a discharge of the liability of the employee to pay for those services.

As can be seen, the matters to which regard must be had in respect of household services are somewhat different than those which must be considered in respect of attendant care services. Mrs Asraf provided information to ANZ about the "cooking, cleaning, lawn mowing and gardening" household services she required on 7 July 2022.[114] It is these services which ANZ determined and they were the subject of the reviewable decision in application 2023/0858 which is presently before the Tribunal.
Mrs Asraf alleges she requires additional attendant care services as a result of her PTSD injury on 30 August 2021 and additional services following her related right knee injuries on 16 December 2022 and 23 January 2023.
It is at least arguable, following Comcare v Lees,[115] Woodhouse v Comcare[116] and Hannaford, and construing the SRC Act in a manner which allows for progressive decision-making, that as Mrs Asraf's claims under s 29 are not confined to the matters she communicated to ANZ on 7 July 2022 but embrace her claims in respect of attendant care services. I will proceed of the basis that the Tribunal has jurisdiction and power to determine all of her claims under s 29 presently.
Nevertheless, for Mrs Asraf's claims to succeed it must be established she requires the particular household and attendant care services as result of an 'injury' for which ANZ is liable. It is on this threshold her claims falter.
I am not satisfied Mrs Asraf requires household or attendant care services as result of an 'injury' as defined in s 5A (with reference to s 5B) of the SRC Act.
There is no reliable evidence of the extent to which Mrs Asraf personally undertook cleaning, cooking, laundry, lawn mowing or gardening prior to 30 August 2021. Her evidence of this is unreliable, inconsistent and not supported.
Prior to 30 August 2021, Mr and Mrs Asraf obtained household services from Saban Graham. The services included cooking and cleaning. Ms Graham was paid $2,200 every 3 months for services provided on a part-time basis (90 hours over each 3-month period). It is probable Ms Graham provided services until December 2022, when she was replaced by a young woman from Fiji, who I will refer to as 'Ms N'.
The evidence given by Ms N is very problematic. Ms N was not available to give oral evidence. She provided a statutory declaration that she was required to work but she was not paid by Mrs Asraf, which directly contradicts an earlier statement she gave in support of Mrs Asraf. Ms N provided a brief handwritten statement to ANZ in which she alleged Mrs Asraf's alleged injury was a fabrication and she had been required to work without payment by Mrs Asraf. Mrs Asraf gave evidence of the arrangement made with Ms N under which Ms N would reside in her house while studying, and she would undertake household duties for which she would be paid $250 per month. Mr Asraf gave evidence supporting this arrangement. The arrangement broke down acrimoniously in or about December 2023. At Ms N's request, police attended to assist her leave Mrs Asraf's house. The police materials suggest Ms N alleged she had not been paid. Mrs Asraf alleged Ms N commenced a relationship with a male person and she became upset when Mrs Asraf informed Ms N's parents in Fiji. It is difficult to know what to make of this evidence. On balance, I am not persuaded Ms N's untested and uncorroborated statements can be given any weight. There are also real questions about the reliability of the evidence given by Mrs Asraf in respect of Ms N.
Despite this and the conflict in the evidence of Ms N and Mrs Asraf, it is probable Ms N provided household services, including cleaning, cooking and laundry, 3 hours per day 5 days per week from December 2022 to December 2023. If this is correct, it does not follow that the services Ms N provided were required by Mrs Asraf as result of an 'injury'.
Mrs Asraf's evidence in respect of her requirement for household and attendant care services requirements,[117] alone, is not sufficient basis on which to determine she required the services claimed as result of an 'injury'.
There is no robust quantification or reliable objective assessment of Mrs Asraf's household and attendant care service requirements from 30 August 2021 other than clinical assessments made on the basis of Mrs Asraf's presentation and purported history of symptoms and effects.
To the extent Ms Falero, Mr Nielsen, Dr Kumagaya, Dr Canaris, Dr Vickery, Dr Lim, Dr Prasad and Dr Dickson address this point, I am satisfied they each rely on the veracity of Mrs Asraf's accounts of her symptoms and related effects on her functional capacity and support needs. This reduces the weight which can be given to their evidence. Dr Vickery explained he relied on Mrs Asraf's account prior to viewing the surveillance materials and, having done so, changed his opinion.
To the extent evidence of Mr Asraf and Ms Asraf supports Mrs Asraf's evidence on these points, their evidence is not impartial. This reduces the weight that can be given. The statement Mrs Asraf attributes to her daughter, which Ms Asraf denies signing, is a fabrication.
Ms Karini gave evidence of her involvement in responding to Mrs Asraf's support requirements from January 2024, working 3 hours per day, 5 days per week for which she is paid $250 per week. It is Ms Karini's evidence she took over MN's duties and she cleans the main house, mostly on the ground floor, she cooks for the family every day, and she does laundry once per week. Ms Karini explained she also sits and talks with Mrs Asraf and she gives her occasional massages. Ms Karini referred to Mrs Asraf experiencing pain which prevents her from going upstairs in the house and she explained she encourages and assists Mrs Asraf to shower when she is sick. Ms Karini's evidence does not establish that the support she provides to Mrs Asraf is required as result of an 'injury'.
Ms Karini also explained that her brother, Abdul Karini, operates the AK Lawnmowing and Gardening business and he provided lawn mowing, tree pruning and gardening services at the Asraf residence. Mrs Asraf alleges that AK Lawnmowing provided services including cleaning, cooking, lawn mowing and gardening for which the business was paid $2,200 monthly. The AK Lawnmowing business invoices in evidence are of uncertain origin. The invoices are for $2,200 monthly, triple the amount paid to Ms Graham. They are sequentially numbered. The invoices given to the Tribunal are photocopies. The Tribunal was not taken to corresponding payments in Mrs Asraf's bank records. Even if one accepts the invoices are for services rendered to Mrs Asraf and AK Lawnmowing was paid the amounts specified, and I make no such finding, it does not follow the services were required by Mrs Asraf as result of an 'injury'.
Furthermore, there is no reliable evidence Mrs Asraf undertook gardening and lawn mowing prior to 30 August 2021 and it is probable Ms Graham provided cleaning and cooking services 3 days each week over many years prior to that date.
Mrs Asraf resides in a household with Mr Asraf, Ms Asraf and a son who resides in co-located but separate accommodation.
Mr Asraf retired from his plumbing business, which he transferred to his son in mid-2022, and he works on an occasional or part-time basis doing plumbing jobs, on call. On the information Mrs Asraf provided to Dr Dickson on 28 February 2022 and to Ms Falero on 4 March 2022, Mr Asraf was doing most of the domestic tasks and supporting Mrs Asraf. If this evidence is correct, Mr Asraf was undertaking these household and attendant care services before he retired from his plumbing business. When cross-examined on this point, Mrs Asraf explained that she obtained family support only when the Covid-19 health restrictions were in place. She and Mr Asraf gave evidence this continued until September 2022. This is not consistent with the public health orders in NSW, which effectively ended in October 2021. There are stark discrepancies between Mrs Asraf's evidence and Mr Asraf's evidence in respect of supports she obtains from him and his capacity to reasonably provide support and assistance. When questioned about this, Mr Asraf explained that, as Mrs Asraf's husband, he gave evidence in support of his wife.
I am satisfied that Mr Asraf could reasonably be expected to provide household and attendant care services to Mrs Asraf from July 2022 and presently.
Ms Asraf gave evidence which does not squarely align with Mrs Asraf's evidence in respect of supports Ms Asraf has provided since 30 August 2021. This comes to a sharp point when one considers the statement purportedly signed by Ms Asraf on 13 February 2023 which Mrs Asraf gave the Tribunal on 14 April 2023.[118] When this document was shown to Ms Asraf, she denied signing it or any knowledge of it. Ms Asraf gave evidence in 2022 she was employed full-time in a bottle shop and she is presently employed as a customer service officer on a casual basis (from January 2025). She explained she is undertaking an online course of study, part time and she manages a portfolio of investment properties, including responding to messages from the real estate agent. Ms Asraf could not recall the name of the real estate agent. Additionally, Ms Asraf gave evidence that she obtains two carer payments from Centrelink as she cares for her grandmother and 'another lady' who is 'close family' and a pensioner, as well as Mrs Asraf.
Ms Asraf gave a statement dated 21 August 2024 in which she set out the supports she provides Mrs Asraf:

Mrs Asraf asserts she continued to experience the effects of the injury for which ANZ accepted liability on and after 20 January 2023. She argues ANZ is liable to pay her compensation in respect of incapacity for work and medical treatment expenses, including psychological treatment expenses, on and after that date.
ANZ alleges Mrs Asraf did not suffer an injury on 30 August 2021 and even if she did, the effects ceased soon thereafter by January 2022.
These matters are to be decided under s 16 and Division 3, Part II of the SRC Act. ANZ will be liable to pay compensation to Mrs Asraf for medical treatment expenses if it is established the medical treatment was obtained in relation to the 30 August 2021 injury for which ANZ accepted liability. ANZ will be liable to pay Mrs Asraf compensation for incapacity for work if it is established Mrs Asraf is incapacitated for work as a result of that injury.
The contemporaneous medical records paint a confusing picture. On 6 September 2021 and 15 September 2021, Dr Nguyen noted that Mrs Asraf experienced stress attributed to the incident on 30 August 2021. His notes of consultations with Mrs Asraf on 18 and 21 September 2021 do not refer to any continuing symptoms.
Against this, the records of Dr Lim on 20 September 2021 and Mr Nielsen on 27 September 2021 suggest that Mrs Asraf was experiencing significant psychological symptoms. It is clear enough Mrs Asraf consulted Dr Lim for the first time on 20 September 2021 in the context of her claim for compensation. On 5 October 2021, Dr Vickery reported that "Mrs Asraf continues to suffer from the effects of the psychological condition on the basis of the history provided".
The history of the incident on 30 August 2021 Mrs Asraf gave of the bank customer "trying to hit her",[120] attempting to "punch her in the face" and "screaming abuse straight in my face and then he launched himself at me"[121] as recorded by Dr Lim, Mr Nielsen and Dr Vickery does not align well with the video recording of the 30 August 2021 incident. Even if it is accepted that Mrs Asraf perceived the actions of the bank customer in these ways, her response to such perceptions (as recorded in the video) does not appear to involve an emotional reaction, including significant upset or tears, as she has alleged. That said, I cannot step into Mrs Asraf's mind or know the content of her subjective experiences or her innermost thoughts or perceptions of these events. It is an objective assessment of the relevant evidence which is required, and on that measure, I am satisfied Mrs Asraf's account is likely tempered by exaggeration or embellishment albeit perhaps rooted in her adverse perceptions.
Subsequent medical records and reports, including records and reports by Dr Vickery (prior to him changing his opinion), Dr Kumagaya, Dr Canaris, Dr Dickson, Dr Lim, Ms Falero and Mr Nielsen are all reliant on the veracity of the history Mrs Asraf provided. I have grave doubts about the reliability of Mrs Asraf's accounts of alleged symptoms and the weight that can be given to the medical and psychological records and reports which rely on her account being true.
There is much to suggest Mrs Asraf was not suffering symptoms of the kinds she related to Ms Falero, Dr Dickson and Dr Kumagaya. The records of Dr Nguyen from 18 September 2021 and the records of Dr Prasad do not refer to Mrs Asraf experiencing any psychological symptoms. The explanation Mrs Asraf provided of segregating ailments, alleged injuries and treating doctors does not assist her case and it does not explain why anyone would approach medical treatment in such a manner, when doing so raises obvious treatment issues, particularly in respect of medications and potential conflicts. That aside, the proposition Mrs Asraf did not disclose psychological symptoms to her 'knee injury' doctor is problematic. If she was actually experiencing the symptoms she described to Dr Dickson on 29 November 2021 and Ms Falero on 9 December 2021, including "Feeling 'very agitated'" and "hyperarousal, anxious and depressive cognitions", "hypervigilance" and "Low mood"[122] for example, or the symptoms Dr Kumagaya reported on 3 December 2021, particularly in respect of functional restrictions on "self-care and personal hygiene", "social functioning", "concentration, persistence and pace"[123], one might expect these would have been disclosed or apparent and noted in her presentation with "Atypical chest pain" to Dr Prasad on 7 December 2021. Dr Prasad made no such note, and he did not record fluoxetine in Mrs Asraf's prescribed medications.
There are extensive subsequent medical records which suggest Mrs Asraf's alleged psychological symptoms fluctuated and the psychological condition diagnosed and treated by Dr Kumagaya, Ms Falero, Dr Lim and Dr Dickson did not remit and arguably worsened. The evidence of Dr Canaris supports this proposition but, as the doctor explained, his opinion proceeds on his acceptance that Mrs Asraf's accounts are true and reliable.
Associate Professor Mendelson, and ultimately Dr Vickery, came to a different conclusion. On 2 November 2022, Associate Professor Mendelson reported his opinion that Mrs Asraf's "complaints of emotional symptoms, and alleged resultant limitations on being able to undertake activities of daily living ... are due to the concatenation of her sense of grievance, resentment, and anger towards her employer, catastrophising, and pathologizing of her initial common and expected stress response to the incident on 30 August 2021".[124] The Associate Professor concluded Mrs Asraf "does not have any diagnosable mental disorder" at that time.
On this point, the evidence of Associate Professor Mendelson is preferred to that of Dr Kumagaya, Dr Canaris, Dr Lim, Dr Dickson, Ms Falero and Mr Neilsen. Aside from the Associate Professor's specialist expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of PTSD, he also has expertise in the assessment of malingering in this context. The Associate Professor objectively assessed the detailed content of the video recording of the incident on 30 August 2021 and he formulated his diagnosis on the basis of a thorough mental state examination. Associate Professor Mendelson was extensively cross-examined and he adhered to his opinions which are supported by cogent and detailed reasoning.
Dr Kumagaya has been Mrs Asraf's treating psychiatrist since 4 November 2021. While in that role he is in a position to provide insights into her symptoms and presentation over time, the doctor has a therapeutic relationship with Mrs Asraf which is reinforced by his acceptance of the accounts she has given of the incident on 30 August 2021 and her allegedly related subsequent symptoms and functional effects. With no disrespect to Dr Kumagaya, in his role as treating psychiatrist, the therapeutic relationship he has developed with Mrs Asraf is likely to have informed his opinions and this reduces the impartiality and the weight of his opinion evidence.
Dr Canaris provided three reports and he provided oral evidence. The doctor reviewed the video recording of the 30 August 2021 incident and surveillance materials. With regard to the video recording of the incident, Dr Canaris noted the absence of sound and the aggressive conduct of the bank customer. In his second report he proffered opinion about Persistent Depressive Disorder with anxious distress as a possible an alternative diagnosis if the diagnostic criteria for PTSD are not met. In his third report Dr Canaris reported "if we are to take the social media/surveillance material at face value, it would appear that [Mrs Asraf] has a very much misrepresented herself",[125] but he was prepared to accept the social media materials were either posted prior to the 30 August 2021 incident or they were in respect of events which do not either disclose Mrs Asraf's state of mind or they are not inconsistent with her experience of psychological symptoms of PTSD. The issue for Dr Canaris was one of credibility of Mrs Asraf and Ms Asraf which he stated is beyond his expertise as a psychiatrist. I am satisfied there are real concerns about the reliability of Mrs Asraf's evidence or her 'credibility' and this reduces the weight that can be given to Dr Canaris' opinion evidence which relies on Mrs Asraf's accounts being correct.
More generally, I give more weight to the psychiatric evidence on questions of psychiatric diagnosis and persistence of psychological symptoms and related effects than the evidence of Dr Dickson, Dr Lim, Ms Falero and Mr Nielson who are not psychiatrically trained and qualified. This is not a criticism of any of these health practitioners.
In conclusion, the opinion evidence of Associate Professor Mendelson is compelling and I accept it. I am not persuaded Mrs Asraf experienced compensable effects of the injury for which ANZ accepted liability on or from 20 January 2023 to the present. There are very significant doubts about Mrs Asraf's alleged symptoms and her related compensation claims. Her evidence is not reliable and it lacks reliable corroboration. On the evidence of Associate Professor Mendelson and Dr Vickery, I am satisfied the injury for which ANZ accepted liability did not result in incapacity for work and it did not require medical (or psychological) treatment as of 20 January 2023, or thereafter to the present.
From this it follows the reviewable decision in application 2023/2773 is affirmed.

As the alleged injuries are said to have occurred in Mrs Asraf's house when she was not performing duties in her ANZ employment, the extended meaning of the term' 'arising out of, or in the course of' employment is not engaged. The only causal vector between Mrs Asraf's ANZ employment and the alleged right knee injuries is through the psychological 'PTSD' injury for which ANZ accepted liability.
There are four difficulties which arise at this point.
Firstly, there is only Mrs Asraf's evidence of the specific circumstances in which she alleges the injuries occurred, including her statement on 19 July 2023.[126] There is no reliable independent or impartial evidence the alleged injuries occurred in the circumstances and the manner Mrs Asraf described. Mrs Asraf alleges, on 16 December 2022, Mr Asraf and Ms Asraf assisted her after she fell and, on 21 January 2023, Ms Asraf assisted her when she fell on the stairs. These accounts are not reliably corroborated by Mr Asraf or Ms Asraf.
Secondly, the contemporaneous medical records of Ms Mill on 16 December 2022 and 19 January 2022 do not refer to Mrs Asraf suffering a right knee injury on 16 December 2022. Mrs Asraf consulted Ms Mill after she allegedly sustained a right knee injury slipping in the shower on 16 December 2022. If this actually occurred, the proposition Mrs Asraf did not raise it with Ms Mill, or that Ms Mill omitted to note it, is simply implausible. By her own account, Mrs Asraf did not consult a doctor about the alleged right knee injury. On the available evidence, I am not persuaded Mrs Asraf injured her right knee falling in the shower on 16 December 2022. Even if she did slip and hurt her right knee in the shower on that day, there is no reliable material of probative value that she heard a loud noise which caused her to panic and fall. Without more, I am not satisfied Mrs Asraf suffered a right knee 'injury' on 16 December 2022 which arose out of her ANZ employment.
Thirdly, Dr Prasad's clinical records of consultations with Mrs Asraf on 21 and 23 January 2023 do not align with Mrs Asraf's account of falling on the stairs in her house on 21 January 2023. On Dr Prasad's clinical records of those consultations, Mrs Asraf presented on 21 January 2023 with a suspected cellutis infection of her right foot for which the doctor prescribed antibiotic treatment. Had there been a twisting injury to her right knee on that day sufficient to cause a tear in her medial meniscus, one would expect she would have raised it with her treating doctor. Furthermore, Mrs Asraf again consulted Dr Prasad about right leg symptoms on 23 January 2023 and, on this occasion, the doctor noted a 2-day history of acute swelling in the right knee/calf. Once again, there is no reference to any alleged right knee injury or to the twisting mechanism of injury Mrs Asraf subsequently alleged on a further consultation with Dr Prasad on 31 January 2023. Had Mrs Asraf actually fallen on her stairs on 21 January 2023 and sustained a twisting injury to her right knee of sufficient magnitude to tear her medial meniscus, the proposition she omitted to raise it with Dr Prasad, or that the doctor omitted to note it, is implausible.
Even if Mrs Asraf did fall on her stairs on 21 January 2023 and injure her right knee, and I make no such finding, the alleged cause of this is not reliably established by relevant material of probative value. Dr Prasad noted Mrs Asraf's account: "She was rushing due to loud noise which flares her PTSD and panic disorder". This and the account Mrs Asraf provided in written and oral evidence lacks any reliable corroboration.
The fourth difficulty is that the MRI scan taken of Mrs Asraf's right knee on 3 February 2023 refers to a "chronic" medial meniscus tear. By definition, the word 'chronic' suggests the medial meniscus tear had been in existence for some time. Use of this word suggests the meniscal tear was not considered to be acute at the time the MRI scan was taken. Had the tear been caused by a fall on 21 January 2023, it is unlikely to have been reported as 'chronic' on 3 February 2023. As the radiologist was not called to give evidence, and there is no relevant expert opinion evidence to assist the Tribunal on this point, I can go no further with it.
In conclusion, the relevant available evidence does not establish Mrs Asraf sustained an injury to her right knee in falls on 16 December 2022 and 21 January 2023 which arose out of her ANZ employment. On the available materials, it is clear enough Mrs Asraf has a torn medial meniscus in her right knee. When this arose and in what circumstances it is not possible to determine. I am unable to make a positive finding that Mrs Asraf sustained a right knee 'injury' on 16 December 2022 or on 21 January 2023 which arose out of her ANZ employment and resulted in impairment or incapacity for work, such that ANZ is liable to pay compensation under s 14 of the SRC Act. I am satisfied that no such 'injury' is presently made out.
That being so, the reviewable decision in application 2023/4228 is affirmed.

ANZ asserts, despite its previous acceptance of liability, on the present evidence Ms Asraf did not suffer an 'injury' on 30 August 2021.
Mrs Asraf contests this and maintains she suffered an injury on that day which continues to affect her to a very significant extent.
It is not strictly necessary to engage with these considerations in order to determine the matters under review by the Tribunal.
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to address the parties' submissions and to make a factual finding, as requested.
A great deal turns on the plausibility and relative consistency of Mrs Asraf's accounts and the extent to which the subjective psychological symptoms and behavioural effects she has described are corroborated by independent assessments, reliable witnesses and objective evidence.
Mrs Asraf's accounts of subjective perceptions, experiences and symptoms are instrumental in the formulation of medical and psychiatric diagnoses and treatments, as well as the assessment of related incapacity for work and household or attendant care services. Dr Kumagaya, Dr Canaris and Dr Vickery gave evidence that they relied on information Mrs Asraf provided, which they took to be true.
Mrs Asraf gave evidence that all the treatment she received, including psychological counselling, was helpful to her. The contemporaneous medical and psychological evidence paints a different picture in which Ms Asraf is noted to have suggested her condition stabilised but then complained of persistent, elevated and worsening symptoms, in respect of which increased prescriptions of fluoxetine were made by Dr Kumagaya, for example.
While the content of Mrs Asraf's subjective perceptions, experiences and symptoms are personal to her, and truly known only by her, to some degree, the veracity or truthfulness of her accounts of such personal matters might reasonably be measured by evidence of her related conduct or behaviour. For such evidence, Mrs Asraf relies on family members, particularly Mr Asraf and Ms Asraf, and domestic assistants, including Ms N and Ms Karini. There is also surveillance material, including video and photographic evidence of Mrs Asraf. There is a controversy over the surveillance material and when items were posted on social media. Neither party sought to adduce evidence from Ms Asraf when she explained the images were catalogued in her mobile telephone. The surveillance material clearly shows Mrs Asraf engaging in social and recreational activities in various locations. At least some of this material relates to events after 30 August 2021, in which Mrs Asraf appears to engage in activities inconsistent with her alleged psychological symptoms. It is conceivable, as Dr Canaris observed, that she was doing her best to disguise her symptoms and to maintain a veneer of normalcy in the eyes of her community. This might be so, and the social media images posted after 30 August 2021 might have related to earlier events as Ms Asraf asserts, but overall the surveillance material weighs against Mrs Asraf's version of events.
Mr Asraf and Ms Asraf reside with Mrs Asraf and they would be in a position to observe and provide evidence of her conduct and behaviour. They might also be in a position to disclose matters related to them by Mrs Asraf in the course of family life and daily events. This notwithstanding, it is clear enough that Mr Asraf and Ms Asraf are not impartial observers. They are active participants in Mrs Asraf's family, domestic, financial, community and cultural affairs, and in all likelihood they are instrumental in the arrangement of family finances, assets, investments and income streams. This is a relevant consideration when determining the reliability of their evidence.
Mr Asraf's evidence lends little support to Mrs Asraf's evidence in respect of her alleged symptoms and her conduct and behaviour in the period immediately following 30 August 2021. Mr Asraf's oral and written evidence suggests Mrs Asraf's behaviour changed for the worse after being informed of ANZ's surveillance activities.
Ms Asraf's evidence provides some support to Mrs Asraf's account of subjective symptoms following the 30 August 2021 incident but there are clear inconsistencies in her evidence which raise questions about the extent to which it can be relied upon. For example, Ms Asraf gave evidence she never posted photographs or videos of family events to Tik Tok or Facebook in close proximity to the events. When pressed on this, she admitted she had posted such materials soon after family events, such as in respect of her birthday in December 2022 and family Eid celebrations in 2023.
There are stark inconsistencies in the evidence of Mrs Asraf and Ms Asraf. For example, Mrs Asraf asserted that Ms Asraf is too busy with her other commitments and her life to provide household support, whereas Ms Asraf explained she is a carer for her grandmother and another woman, for which she is paid two carer allowances, and she cares for Mrs Asraf 'on the side'.[127] Mrs Asraf gave evidence Ms Asraf manages all of the financial arrangements and transactions in her bank details, whereas Ms Asraf was denied knowledge of or was unable to explain a number of financial records or arrangements, in respect of CommInsure and investment properties for example, and explained that 'I'll sit there and watch like, I'll, like double check everything, like if it's the right amount'.[128] Mrs Asraf alleged Ms Asraf provided all the information contained in Mrs Asraf's Centrelink Jobseeker application, whereas Ms Asraf denied knowledge of this.
Dr Vickery and Associate Professor Mendelson concluded that Mrs Asraf was malingering. There is much force to their evidence on this point. Dr Canaris demurred from drawing such a conclusion as malingering is not a matter to be psychiatrically determined and it is best left to the Tribunal.
Mrs Asraf's assertion she perceived the bank customer as a threat to her safety can be accepted. Her evidence of experiencing extreme fear during the incident is a subjective perception which is likely informed by many factors drawn from Mrs Asraf's particular circumstances, including cultural and gender considerations. It is probable the experience of being verbally abused by an aggressive male bank customer was a challenging affront to Mrs Asraf's equanimity. Her alleged experience of extreme fear is not consistent with the video recording, however. Mrs Asraf's evidence she was really upset and nauseated by the incident, and she retreated to the bathroom where she started to cry, is not supported by the video recording. In the video recording, Mrs Asraf is seen to resume her duties only moments after the incident without apparent upset. She continued to work on subsequent days. This suggests her immediate response to the incident was not quite as she has alleged.
This is consistent with Mrs Asraf informing the nurse at the Lourdes Medical Centre on 2 September 2021 that she was "well today".[129]
Mrs Asraf subsequently disclosed details she alleges occurred in the 30 August 2021 incident not originally reported. These include that the bank customer screamed abuse at her, tried to punch her in the face, and threatened to kill her and her family. There is no independent corroboration of these details. The contemporaneous and objective evidence is inconclusive. The incident was not referred to police. Mrs Asraf asserts this was due to the Bank Manager not wanting police involvement. An alternative explanation is that the incident was not sufficiently serious, or the conduct of the bank customer was not such as to warrant such a referral.
I am unable to be positively satisfied the bank customer attempted to punch Mrs Asraf in the face or that he screamed abuse at her and threatened to kill her or her family members, as she alleges. Nevertheless, I am satisfied the bank customer became irate and abusive, and he behaved aggressively by attempting to throw open the concertina partition door in the bank. It is probable he raised his voice sufficiently to momentarily attract the attention of other people in the vicinity.
Mrs Asraf alleges her symptoms arose in the days following the incident and they became worse despite treatment. On 6 September 2021, one week after the incident, she informed Dr Nguyen she had been experiencing stress and disturbed sleep, she was unable to concentrate, and she was not able to do housework. On this evidence, at this time, Mrs Asraf did not complain of nightmares, flashbacks or many of the other symptoms she later alleged.
There is no reliable independent corroborative evidence of Mrs Asraf experiencing these alleged symptoms prior to 6 September 2021. Mr Asraf's evidence was vague and lacking detail on this point. Ms Asraf gave evidence of changes in her mother's demeanour and behaviour, but there are real questions about the reliability of her accounts and documents she is alleged to have authored. On any measure, as members of Mrs Asraf's immediate family, Mr Asraf and Ms Asraf cannot be viewed as impartial or independent witnesses and this affects the weight which can be given to their uncorroborated evidence on controversial points.
Mrs Asraf consulted Dr Nguyen on 15 September 2021, 18 September 2021 and 21 September 2021. In the first of these consultations, Dr Nguyen noted Mrs Asraf was "still suffering with stress from incident" and she had a "problem with sleeping" for which the doctor prescribed Circadin 2mg (melatonin).[130] There is no evidence Mrs Asraf took this medication.
The clinical notes of the consultations with Dr Nguyen on 18 September 2021 and 21 September 2021 do not refer to any psychological symptoms or other alleged effects of the incident on 30 August 2021. If Mrs Asraf was experiencing psychological symptoms at this time, one could reasonably expect these would have been raised with Dr Nguyen as he was the doctor Mrs Asraf initially consulted on 6 September 2021 in respect of alleged psychological symptoms she attributed to the incident on 30 August 2021. Furthermore, Dr Nguyen had previously consulted Mrs Asraf on several occasions, including with home visits and following a motor vehicle accident on 21 June 2021.[131]
This evidence weighs against evidence of Mrs Asraf's account of symptoms when she first consulted Dr Lim at the Workers Doctors practice on 20 September 2021. Dr Lim noted Mrs Asraf's symptoms: "Depressed, stressed, trouble sleeping, trouble concentrating, anxious, nightmares, flashbacks, fatigued, low motivation, palpitations, low motivation, low energy" and "she dreams about the customer yelling at her and trying to hit her", she "has gained weight", she "has been eating more food" and she "does not have the motivation to exercise".[132]
It is possible this account is true, but there is no reliable corroboratory evidence Mrs Asraf experienced many of these alleged symptoms prior to 20 September 2021. As Dr Lim was not called to give oral evidence, it is not possible to know the methodology he adopted when examining Mrs Asraf and drawing conclusions about her mental state. He noted Mrs Asraf weighed 73 kilograms.[133] This is consistent with Mrs Asraf's weight recorded by Dr Nguyen on 18 September 2021.[134] There is no objective evidence Mrs Asraf gained weight in the period from 30 August 2021. Dr Lim also noted Mrs Asraf was showering everyday and she had low motivation in respect of domestic duties.
On 27 September 2021, Mr Nielsen reported:

On 7 October 2021, Ms Falero reported her diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and "PCL-5 score = 71/80".[139] 'PCL-5' refers to the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 which is a self-report questionnaire. A score of 71 on this instrument would be consistent with severe PTSD. Ms Falero reported that Mrs Asraf experienced low mood and amotivation which caused delay with domestic duties, grooming and make-up, and although Mrs Asraf showered daily, she was socially and recreationally withdrawn and unable to drive due to anxious distress. On Ms Falero's report, "Mrs Asraf has lost confidence in her abilities to perform work. She has lost trust in her work environment to ensure her safety. Mrs Asraf noted suffering with anergia secondary to hypervigilance and sleep disturbance".[140]
There is no reliable corroborative evidence of Mrs Asraf experiencing these alleged symptoms in the period from 30 August 2021 to 7 October 2021.
Ms Falero reported a treatment target of reducing the PCL-5 score to 61 within 8 consultations.[141] On 18 February 2022, Ms Falero reported that Mrs Asraf's prognosis was "unclear" and "[Mrs Asraf] has experienced an exacerbation in her symptoms due to persistent harassment from rehabilitation providers".[142] In a further PCL-5 self-assessment, Mrs Asraf scored 72.[143]
On 21 October 2021, Dr Vickery reported a detailed account of Mrs Asraf's alleged symptoms which included, "dreaming about it... sweating... palpitations... not sleeping... I am so irritable, and I am having outbursts at my family... I don't care about things like I did before and I don't have any interest in doing things ...".[144] The doctor reported Mrs Asraf was not driving as "I feel unsafe as I think he might be following me, and I can't go anywhere by myself and its like I don't have freedom now and I can't even go to see my four grandchildren now".[145]
There is no reliable independent corroboration of these alleged symptoms. Dr Vickery reported Mrs Asraf was taking Panadol and Nurofen for neck pain and headaches. There is no reference to her taking Circadin which Dr Nguyen prescribed on 15 September 2021 for her alleged sleep difficulties.
Considering these matters, it is more probable than not Mrs Asraf experienced stress as a result of the incident on 30 August 2021, but it is not safe to accept Dr Nguyen's reference to 'PTSD' is a robust diagnosis of that psychiatric disorder in Mrs Asraf's case. The objective assessments Associate Professor Mendelson, Dr Vickery and Dr Canaris undertook of the video recording of the 30 August 2021 incident admit the possibility Mrs Asraf might have perceived the bank customer posed a serious threat to her well-being which, ordinarily, might be expected to provoke a stress response. In all likelihood that is what occurred.
The trajectory of symptoms noted in Dr Nguyen's clinical notes on 6 and 15 September 2021 are consistent with no further symptoms being noted in consultations with Mrs Asraf on 18 and 21 September 2021. The psychological symptoms recorded by Dr Lim on 20 September 2021 are in stark contrast to Dr Nguyen's contemporaneous notes. Yet the symptoms noted by Dr Lim and alleged by Mrs Asraf are reiterated to varying degrees in the records and reports of Mr Neilsen, Ms Falero, Ms Mill, Dr Lim, Dr Dickson, Dr Kumagaya, Dr Vickery (prior to him viewing the surveillance materials), Dr Canaris and (to a lesser extent) Dr Prasad.
As I have said, there is a great deal of material which would support Mrs Asraf's claims if her accounts and her evidence is accepted as reliable and true.
It is with some difficulty I have reached the conclusion no such positive finding can be made. There are too many inconsistencies, contradictions, coincidences, anomalies and uncertainties which weigh against the reliability of Mrs Asraf's evidence and the veracity of accounts she has given doctor and therapists since 30 August 2021.

It will be clear by now that much of Mrs Asraf's case turns on her own evidence and accounts she has given to doctors and therapists who have examined or treated her. There is a great deal of medical material, some of which I have referred to in detail. If one accepts the contents of the contemporaneous medical materials at face value, there would be much to support Mrs Asraf's claims for compensation. Much of the expert opinion evidence supports her claims. All this material relies on the veracity of accounts Mrs Asraf has given in respect of her perceptions, psychological symptoms and their effects. I have found Mrs Asraf's evidence on key points is not reliable and it carries little or no weight.
I accept Associate Professor Mendelson's evidence in respect of the identification of malingering in cases of alleged post-traumatic stress disorder. On his evidence and the evidence of Dr Vickery, it is likely this is such a case.
Even if it is not, I am satisfied Mrs Asraf's claims for household and attendant care services are not made out. It is not established, and I am not satisfied, she requires any such services as result of a psychological 'injury' on 30 August 2021. Mrs Asraf has not been frank about household services she obtained over many years prior to 30 August 2021. There are serious doubts about the purported limit of her own functional capabilities and the capacity of family members to provide support. If Mrs Asraf requires household and attendant care services, it is probable these can reasonably be expected to be provided by family members who reside with her.
I am satisfied Mrs Asraf is not entitled to compensation for medical treatment expenses and incapacity for work as of 23 January 2023. It is more likely than not that any medical treatment Mrs Asraf required and any degree of incapacity for work she experienced on and after 23 January 2023 is not as a result of an 'injury' or, more particularly, a psychological injury on 30 August 2021. On Associate Professor Mendelson's expert opinion, Mrs Asraf was not suffering from a diagnosable psychiatric disorder on 2 November 2022 and the incident on 30 August 2021 was not the type of traumatic stressor that would be considered capable of triggering post-traumatic stress disorder. The Associate Professor's opinion evidence is supported by the expert evidence of Dr Vickery, and it carries greater weight than the expert opinion evidence of Dr Canaris. This is because the Associate Professor is a specialist in post-traumatic stress disorder and his expert opinion does not depend on the veracity of Mrs Asraf's account: his mental state examination and related rationale are cogent, detailed and robustly impartial. With no disrespect to Dr Canaris, his opinions, his mental state examination and his reasoning, while cogent and very clear, are substantially dependant on acceptance of Mrs Asraf's accounts as true.
The relevant evidence does not establish Mrs Asraf sustained a right knee 'injury' on 16 December 2022 or on 21 January 2023 for which ANZ is liable to pay compensation. It is not presently established by relevant probative material, and I am not satisfied, that the medial meniscus tear in Mrs Asraf's right knee arose out of her ANZ employment.
In all likelihood, Mrs Asraf experienced stress as a result of the incident on 30 August 2021 which resolved soon after 15 September 2021. The question whether this amounts to an 'ailment' and an 'injury' is vexed. Certainly, Dr Nguyen accepted Mrs Asraf's account at the time and he certified she was unfit for work. Doing the best with the contemporaneous materials, it possible, even likely, Dr Nguyen responded to Mrs Asraf's description of her symptoms as 'PTSD' without undertaking a thorough mental state examination. If that is correct, there is a serious question about the veracity of the symptoms Mrs Asraf alleged at the time.
Therein lies a substantial difficulty in this unfortunate case. On the one hand, if one accepts Mrs Asraf's accounts and the related medical and therapeutic records, assessments and opinions, her case would very likely succeed. In all likelihood, ANZ accepted the veracity of her account of alleged injury when determining her claim for compensation. On the other hand, if one does not accept her evidence and the accounts she has given are reliable, her case is fatally undermined. This is because, at least in part, in cases of this kind involving compensation claims in respect of reactive psychiatric disorders, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, a great deal of reliance is placed by doctors and decision makers on the person's account of alleged symptoms and adverse effects as a result of an incident in their employment. Commonly in such cases, it is the person's account of alleged perceptions and psychological symptoms which affect their ability to function in daily life that inform diagnosis and treatment.
In many cases, these are not matters which are readily amenable to objective testing. They are substantially informed by subjective self-reporting. It is for this reason a thorough mental state examination by a suitably qualified person, applying standard diagnostic criteria and impartial clinical judgment is required. This provides a framework for the assessment and categorisation of an alleged psychiatric ailment and contributory factors based on the person's description of their perceptions, experiences and symptoms. As Dr Canaris pointed out, it is not for a psychiatrist to test the veracity of the person's account of their perceptions and experience, which is within the purview of courts and tribunals. Nevertheless, as Associate Professor Mendelson explained, exercise of clinical judgment in the context of compensation claims extends to considerations of malingering, which requires more than simple acceptance.
It is not possible to know with certainty what is in the mind of a claimant such as Mrs Asraf. It is entirely possible she believes what she has alleged is true and that the accounts she has given doctors and therapists (and this Tribunal) are accurate. It is possible, as Associate Professor Mendelson observed, that she is catastrophising and pathologising a normal stress response to a stressful incident. It is also possible, as ANZ asserts, she has not been entirely truthful and she has fabricated or exaggerated claims in order to obtain compensation.
In these reviews, determination of Mrs Asraf's case turns on objective assessment of the extensive evidence, in which her evidence, her claims and accounts, are considered against other materials, and careful assessment of the weight to be given to witness evidence, including expert opinion evidence, and to contemporaneous medical records and surveillance materials. This has not resulted in a positive finding.
In the result, I have found the threshold of satisfaction is not surpassed and Mrs Asraf's claims are not made out. From this it follows the decisions under review are affirmed.

Asraf and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 1144 (30 May 2025)

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (186 paragraphs)

Asraf and Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (Compensation) [2025] ARTA 1144 (30 May 2025)

Legislation Cited (4)