1. Secondly, the delegate was not satisfied the claimed psychological injuries were significantly contributed to by the Applicant's employment with Services Australia, but rather by pre-existing and/or non-related personal factors, and even if they were considered to have arisen from employment, the exclusionary provisions under section 5A(2) of the SRC Act applied. The delegate stated this was because the injuries had arisen as a result of reasonable administrative action, taken in a reasonable manner following the denial of miscellaneous leave which precipitated the reporting of the claim.[4]
2. The Hearing was listed before me over a two-day period by video with the Applicant representing herself and Ms Sarah Wright of Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, instructed by McInnes Wilson Lawyers.
3. Due to the sensitive nature of the matter, the Applicant was visibly upset and understandably emotional at times throughout the Hearing. She was offered a number of breaks in an effort to minimise, as much as is possible, the distress arising from the litigation process itself and having to give evidence on personal and upsetting topics.
4. At the conclusion of the Hearing, the Applicant was clearly distressed and advised that she 'didn't even listen' to the Respondent's oral closing submissions to be able to give further submissions in reply, and nor had she properly read the chronology of agreed facts tendered as part of the evidence, notwithstanding she had confirmed her agreement.
5. The Applicant, however, refused the proposal to provide written submissions to supplement her oral closing submissions after the Hearing to allow her time to consider and process the evidence presented and expand on her closing arguments in a less stressful environment and potentially after seeking emotional and mental health support from her family or treating general practitioner (noting the Applicant appeared by herself throughout the Hearing, having advised at the outset that she did not wish to have a support person with her).

1. The Applicant now seeks a decision of the Tribunal to accept her notice as compliant and have the reviewable decision set aside and substituted with a decision that the claimed condition was caused by her employment with Services Australia and not due to reasonable administrative action, thereby entitling the Applicant to compensation pursuant to section 14 of the SRC Act.[5]
2. The Applicant also requests that the Tribunal conduct an independent review of the Respondent and the employer's handling and management of the various incident reports lodged by her, inadequacy of training to deal with racial vilification and threats of sexual abuse, its non-compliance with policies regarding occupational violence and psychological safety, and a lack of support within the workplace.[6] She seeks to have the employer held accountable for these systemic issues and specifically in regards to their responsibility toward her as an employee to ensure workplace health and safety, and protection from racial abuse and threats of sexual assault and harm.

1. The primary issues in dispute to be determined in these proceedings in order to consider whether the Applicant is entitled to compensation under section 14 of the SRC Act include:

a) Whether the Applicant provided the requisite notice under section 53 of the SRC Act such that the SRC Act applies and she is entitled to seek compensation. > > b) If not, whether her notice is deemed to be compliant under the provisions of section 53(3) of the SRC Act. > > c) If so, the diagnosis of the Applicant's symptoms and whether she suffered the claimed psychological injuries, as an ailment, or an aggravation of an ailment, as a result of the incident as required under section 4(1) of the SRC Act to meet the definition of injury; > > d) If so, were the injuries contributed to, to a significant degree by her employment with Services Australia as the applicable test pursuant to section 5B of the SRC Act; and > > e) If so, whether the injuries were the result of reasonable administrative action, taken in a reasonable manner so as to preclude the Applicant from entitlement to compensation under section 5A(2) of the SRC Act.

2. Notably, while the Applicant's claim for compensation refers to the date of when the incident occurred as 16 March 2009,[7] with medical treatment first sought from Dr Reuben Won on 16 March 2009, it was agreed by the Applicant prior to the commencement of the Hearing that this date was incorrect having regard to the contemporaneous records (including summonsed medical records produced by her general practitioners and incident report records). She properly confirmed that the date of injury should be 24 June 2008.[8] Based on this, I make a finding of fact that the relevant corrected date of injury is 24 June 2008.
3. The Respondent accepts that the Applicant presently suffers from a psychological ailment, diagnosed as 'major depressive disorder with anxious distress and PTSD' as supported by the medical evidence. The Respondent, however, disputes that the present psychological condition arises from the incident or was contributed to, by a significant degree by her employment but rather is due to pre-existing and/or subsequent non-work related factors.[9]
4. This diagnosis is made by both the Applicant's treating general practitioner, Dr Moheb Gerges, and medico-legal psychiatrist, Dr Arun Gupta, independently of each other and is not in contention as the correct diagnosis of the Applicant's current psychological condition.[10] Accordingly, I make a finding of fact that the Applicant's symptoms are diagnosed as 'PTSD with major depressive disorder and anxious distress'.
5. The question therefore remains as to whether her diagnosed psychological condition arises from her employment or due to other factors, but firstly, whether she satisfies the preliminary notice requirements to even be eligible to make a claim under the SRC Act.
6. The Applicant accepts that she did not notify the Respondent, as the relevant authority, of her psychological claim until 1 May 2024, some 15-16 years after the incident she identifies as being the instigating cause of her longstanding psychological condition, and the catalyst of her declining mental health condition.
7. Notably, the Applicant does not make any claim that her diagnosed psychological condition was aggravated by the incident in June 2008, or due to a new or subsequent injury that has occurred during the course of employment since then, and instead attributes the development of her psychological condition solely to that incident and the longstanding effects from that, including lack of support from her workplace surrounding the incident.[11]

1. Pursuant to section 54 of the ART Act, the Tribunal may exercise all the powers and discretions conferred on the original decision-maker and essentially consider and decide the matter afresh on all of the evidence before it, otherwise known as de novo.
2. Section 105 of the ART Act requires the Tribunal to make a determination as follows after hearing the evidence before it:

a) affirming the reviewable decision; or > > b) varying the reviewable decision; or > > c) setting aside the reviewable decision and: > > > (i) making a decision in substitution for the reviewable decision; or > > > > (ii) remitting the matter to the decision-maker for reconsideration in accordance with any orders or recommendations of the Tribunal. [12]

3. In the workers compensation jurisdiction, the substantive application must be determined as above by taking into account the legislative provisions of the applicable workers compensation statute, being the SRC Act in the subject proceeding.
4. Section 14(1) of the SRC Act provides that where an Applicant employee suffers injury that results in death, incapacity for work or impairment, a Respondent is liable to pay compensation:

14 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.

5. Further definition to aide in the interpretation of the SRC Act as to what constitutes an injury, or what is considered as incapacity for work, is set out at section 4(1) as follows:

(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears:

aggravation includes acceleration or recurrence.

ailment means any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development).

(9) A reference in this Act to an incapacity for work is a reference to an incapacity suffered by an employee as a result of an injury, being:

(b) an incapacity to engage in work at the same level at which he or she was engaged by the Commonwealth or a licensed corporation in that work or any other work immediately before the injury happened.

1. Relevantly, section 5A(1) of the SRC Act defines injury as:

(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.

1. For the purposes of applying 5A(1)(a), disease is defined in section 5B of the SRC Act, which provides as follows:

that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.

(2) In determining whether an ailment or aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by an employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee, the following matters may be taken into account:

(b) the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment;

(c) any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation;

(d) any activities of the employee not related to the employment;

(e) any other matters affecting the employee's health.

"significant degree" means a degree that is substantially more than material.

1. Drummond J observed of 'disease' in Comcare v Mooi that 'only conditions involving a disturbance of the normal functions of body or mind are within the term 'disease', as defined, and thus, 'injuries' for the purposes of s 14(1) of the Act.'[13]
2. It is accepted in the subject proceedings that the Applicant's diagnosed PTSD and major depression with anxiety is a disease, being a psychological ailment, and therefore satisfies the definition of an 'injury' for the purposes of section 14(1) of the SRC Act.
3. It remains in dispute, however, as to whether the injury was substantially contributed to by her employment with Services Australia, or in the alternative, whether it was pre-existing and/or due to concurrent non-work related factors, or in the further alternative, due to reasonable administrative action.
4. Before considering these issues, however, the SRC Act can only apply if an Applicant satisfies the eligibility criteria to make a claim for compensation under the legislation in the first place, having provided relevant notice of the injury, as prescribed by section 53 of the SRC Act:

53 Notice of injury or loss, or damage to, property

(1) This Act does not apply in relation to an injury to an employee unless notice in writing of the injury is given to the relevant authority:

(a) as soon as practicable after the employee becomes aware of the injury;

(a) a notice purporting to be a notice referred to in this section has been given to the relevant authority;

(b) the notice, as regards the time of giving the notice or otherwise, failed to comply with the requirements of this section; and

(c) the relevant authority would not, by reason of the failure, be prejudiced if the notice were treated as a sufficient notice, or the failure resulted from the death, or absence from Australia, of a person, from ignorance, from a mistake or from any other reasonable cause;

the notice shall be taken to have been given under this section.

1. The legislative framework of the SRC Act sets out that while an employee may have a diagnosed injury arising from the workplace, they can still be precluded from being eligible for workers compensation if the relevant notice has not been given.

1. The parties helpfully filed a Chronology of Agreed Facts, which I do not intend to replicate in detail, other than to summarise those facts pertinent to the issues in dispute:[14]
2. The Applicant commenced employment with Centrelink in April 2001 in a customer services role in the Dandenong branch on a full-time basis, having emigrated to Australia from India in 1999 with her husband and three children. Upon starting at Centrelink, the Applicant was provided with three months of intensive training.
3. As an inherent part of concierge and customer services in the Newstart Allowance section, the Applicant's role required face to face contact with customers applying for, or already in receipt of, Centrelink payments before she later transferred into the call centre undertaking customer service by telephone in response to her request to be removed from front-facing customer service, supported by her treating general practitioner.
4. Unfortunately, the nature of the Applicant's role in initially processing Newstart Allowance and then later other types of Centrelink benefits, placed her in the direct position of being subjected to angry and, at times, aggressive or abusive customers dissatisfied with decisions made by Centrelink with respect to their payments. The Applicant states that this would frequently comprise of racial abuse and threats of violence towards her or her family, but also a threat to rape her. She submitted numerous Incident Reports on aggressive customer interactions to her employer before she ceased working.[15]
5. The Applicant first attended her general practitioner complaining of work stress and pressure on 23 April 2003, noting that she was 'feeling unappreciated and not taken seriously by superiors, tomorrow will see work psychologist'.[16] At that time she was also experiencing epigastric pain and concerns about diabetes after her mother had recently been diagnosed.
6. The following clinical note dated 29 April 2003 records the Applicant continuing to experience pressure and stress at work and 'wants to [feel] workcover claim for work related stress and depression'. She was referred to a psychologist for counselling.[17]
7. On 1 July 2003, the Applicant presented to her general practitioner with chest pain, nausea and diarrhoea and 'increasingly a lot of stress at work, working a lot of hours, no break, feels that not listened to at work, violence with clients... boss from hell who was on leave is coming and she is feeling stressed in anticipation'.[18]

1. Prior to the date of injury on 24 June 2008, the Applicant reports significant work stress and anxiety at various times throughout 2005-2008, to her treating general practitioner, particularly when performing her concierge role in reception. It was recommended that she change her role from the service desk to help alleviate the stress and anxiety the Applicant was experiencing. There is also reference in the clinical notes to advice being provided about seeking legal help and submitting a workcover claim in 2006, but recording the Applicant did not wish to submit a claim due to fear of discrimination.[19]
2. Around this time in 2006, the Applicant's employer engaged rehabilitative assistance to help the Applicant in her employment given the ongoing difficulties she was having with reports of bullying and harassment, a lack of general support from her employer, stress and anxiety at work and lower back pain.
3. Just prior to the incident on 24 June 2008, in March 2008, the Applicant reported to the rehabilitation provider that she suffered anxiety when contemplating returning to work at the customer service desk again, as set out in their Progress Report.[20]
4. Thereafter, the Applicant attended her general practitioner, Dr Reuben Won on 16 July 2008 requesting a letter in support of her seeking a position within Services Australia without customer contact. She reported to Dr Won that the reason for this was due to physical interaction with a customer who had become aggressive approximately 4 weeks earlier (invariably described as a push, a hit, or a slap on the back) and ensuing stress and anxiety.
5. This is supported by a further Progress Report from the rehabilitation provider to the employer, dated 21 July 2008 referring to the Applicant reporting being 'pushed' by a customer from behind on 24 June 2008, which had exacerbated her anxiety.

1. The Applicant states that she provided a verbal report of the incident to her team leader, Ms Catherine Liggos, on the day it occurred, but no formal incident report or notification was made either at that time, nor later until 1 May 2024 when the claim form was submitted. The Applicant describes the incident as occurring when she approached a man of African descent to direct him to the correct line. He became hostile and accused her of being racist before pushing or hitting her on the lower back when another customer intervened. Following this, she tried to locate her Team Leader, and once she finally did, she felt unsupported and was offered a 15minute break, without any police attendance or security to escort the customer from the premises.
2. Regrettably, a number of potential witnesses to the incident have subsequently changed jobs and were no longer working with Services Australia by the time the Applicant lodged her claim for compensation. The Respondent obtained a statement from Ms Liggos upon being notified of the claim, but by then, Ms Liggos' recollection of the incident was vague.
3. Since the incident, the Applicant continued to experience and report ongoing stress, anxiety and depression resulting from the workplace and feeling that she was not being taken seriously or properly supported in relation to the numerous Incident Reports lodged regarding separate instances of customer abuse and aggression towards her.
4. The Applicant was approved to work from home (WFH) undertaking telephone duties due to COVID in 2020 and remained working from home in some capacity performing 35.5 hours per week, attending the office once per week. Following her mother's cancer diagnosis, the Applicant worked completely from home from July 2023 (after initially being denied this arrangement in April 2023) until her medical invalidity retirement.
5. On 5 October 2023, Dr Gerges, the Applicant's treating general practitioner, provided a letter in support of the Applicant temporarily being relieved of incoming telephone duties and dealing with difficult customers.[21]
6. During this time, a rehabilitation provider, Konekt, had been re-engaged to provide support for the Applicant due to mental health concerns arising from non-work related issues.
7. Dr Gerges further referred the Applicant for counselling and psychological treatment on 1 February 2024 seeking management and assistance relating to the treatment of the Applicant's PTSD, anxiety and depression noting, 'under workcover for further assessment'.[22]
8. On 1 May 2024, the Applicant submitted her claim for compensation, 16 years after the incident, having communicated with her treating general practitioner on 30 January 2024 that she had decided to pursue her workers compensation claim as her employer had failed to support her since the incident despite the obvious decline in her mental health.
9. Thereafter, the Respondent declined her claim on 8 July 2024, which was affirmed following her request for a reconsideration, with the Application for Review being lodged with the Tribunal on appeal on 15 October 2024.
10. The medical retirement was later accepted by the Commonwealth Superannuation Corporation on 7 November 2024, with effect from 28 October 2024 for psychological conditions, being PTSD, depression and anxiety based on a Medical Attendant's Statement of Dr Gerges confirming the diagnosis with a date of onset from 2001, notably some years before the incident.[23] She has not worked since retirement.
11. Both before the incident and subsequently, the Applicant has had a number of other considerable non-work related stressors, evident from her detailed statements, including being diagnosed with cervical intraepitheliat neoplasia grade 3 (cin3), otherwise known as carcinoma-in-situ where the surface of the cervix is affected by abnormal cells, in July 2005. A procedure to excise the abnormal cells was performed in August 2005.
12. Further, with regard to her health, the Applicant has also been diagnosed with Type II diabetes, and has suffered from back and neck pain.
13. The Applicant's dentists provided support for a compassionate release of superannuation in November 2020 due to failed dentition, requiring a mouth reconstruction with implants, which had reduced her quality of life and affected her mental health.[24]
14. She has also been required to care for her mother who, while visiting from India was seriously unwell such that she was unable to return home and was ultimately diagnosed with ovarian cancer and later, dementia. The Applicant has also provided care relating to her daughter, and young granddaughter (both of whom live with her) who has suffered significant respiratory issues needing hospitalisation.
15. Sadly, in addition to being required to care for her mother and other family members, the Applicant has experienced family violence from her son over a significant number of years from 2011 as a result of his addiction to drugs, requiring her to take various period of leave from work. This culminated with him being admitted to a psychiatric hospital following a serious psychotic episode in September 2023 where police were required to attend her home and a restraining order being issued preventing him from returning to the family home after he threatened her husband with a knife.
16. Further to this, the Applicant suffered childhood sexual abuse that necessitated a termination of pregnancy.[25]

1. The evidence before the Tribunal included both oral evidence and documentary evidence tendered toward the conclusion of the Hearing consisting of the T-Documents (Exhibit A) and the Joint Hearing Book (inclusive of supplementary T-Documents) (Exhibit B) filed by the parties for the Tribunal's assistance and efficiency of the Hearing.
2. The Tribunal was also greatly aided by the provision of a brief chronology of agreed facts filed with the Tribunal, and then reproduced in the Joint Hearing Book.[26]

1. The Applicant did note in her closing submissions, however that she did not read the Joint Hearing Book, nor the Chronology before agreeing to them being filed, although this contradicted her comments under affirmation in cross-examination where she confirmed she had agreed to 38 out of 77 points for the purpose of the chronology.
2. The following witnesses gave oral affirmed evidence:

a) The Applicant; > > b) Dr Moheb Gerges, general practitioner, for the Applicant; and > > c) Dr Arun Gupta, psychiatrist, for the Respondent

with closing submissions provided as an extension to the Applicant's Statement dated 23 October 2025 and the Respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues & Contentions filed on 29 September 2025.

1. Further to the information set out in her Statements, the Applicant provided evidence of '[her] truth', under affirmation. She was clearly and understandably emotional during her evidence, stating her claim amounts to a claim for emotional abuse by her employer as a result of the lack of support, care and empathy, disinterest and failure to follow their own procedures.
2. It was necessary to explain the limitations of the Tribunal and that it could not make orders to investigate the employer or the Respondent on work health and safety issues, but rather that the subject proceedings were confined to whether she was entitled to compensation or not under the SRC Act.

1. The Applicant gave evidence on the initial three months of training as being 'fantastic' and enjoying her work. She expanded on the incident and described in greater detail the interaction with the customer in directing him to another line but that he was angry and did not wish to go to the end of the queue, demanding to know if the Applicant was racist before he slapped her across the back, taking her off balance, noting the customer was a big man and had multiple warning flags on his record due to previous aggression towards staff.
2. The Applicant stated that her Team Leader was not in sight at the time but that she had a 15minutes break and cried from 'fear and embarrassment'. She subsequently saw the customer 2-3 times in the Dandenong area before changing to the Moorabin branch of Services Australia.
3. On direct questioning of when the Applicant knew she was unwell, she responded '2001' but that she didn't know about compensation, being a new immigrant to Australia.
4. The Applicant further stated that even after her doctor told her to submit a claim 2-3 times, she refused, fearing she would lose her job. She finally did in May 2024 believing that 'someone need[s] to take account for our safety' after 'it all fell apart in 2023 because of the family domestic violence and dealing with customers exactly like my son, so dealing with it at home and at work, but I didn't tell my work due to shame'.
5. During her evidence, the Applicant advised that she had not sought medical treatment due to financial constraints even with a Mental Health Plan, nor taken up her employer's offer to use the Employee Assistance Program for free counselling because, 'why should I go through EAP and the trauma of that when EAP can't say anything to my employer. What can they do, just tell me to listen to music'.
6. The Applicant concluded her examination in chief stating that when she decided to be brave and stand up for herself at work, she felt targeted on leave issues, but acknowledged she did not tell her employer of the truth and that she lied regarding her reasons for seeking leave as she did not trust them or that her private information would not be commented about. She also pleaded as to why her employer did not do anything when they could see her distressed and see the visible change in her.
7. In cross-examination, the Applicant minimised the pre-existing symptoms of depression as reported in the clinical notes or could not recall, but made proper concessions once taken to the individual clinical notes. She further conceded that she had not allowed the rehabilitation providers to speak with her doctors because 'she had her reasons'.
8. When it was put to the Applicant that by 2008 she knew she could lodge a claim for compensation, she initially denied being aware of that, still being newly emigrated to Australia from 1999, but then confirmed she 'probably did know' by then (being 9 years after arrival) having reviewed the 2006 clinical records referring to her wanting to lodge a workcover claim but explained that she was concerned with the repercussions of making a claim or creating any difficulty.
9. Through cross-examination, the Applicant confirmed that she had lodged 27-28 incident reports and was familiar with the process but had failed to lodge an incident report for the incident on 24 June 2008, believing her team leader should have done it for her. She also acknowledged that she had said to a team leader in 2017 that 'she could lodge a big compo claim' but denied it was said as a threat and again relayed that she did not submit a claim until 2024 because she was fearful of reprisal to her job, notwithstanding previous reports to the employer about having anxiety had resulted in them providing rehabilitation assistance and changing her role to non-customer facing with no adverse action.
10. While in cross-examination, the Applicant resorted to questioning Counsel for the Respondent about the actions of Services Australia and how and why they did certain things, or omitted to undertake certain actions and it was clear that she was angry and upset with what she perceived to be a lack of support from her employer. She also at times presented as argumentative on sensitive topics and downplayed all other stressors except the incident and her psychological injuries from that incident and the management by her employer.

1. Dr Gerges was called to give evidence by the Applicant as her treating general practitioner. He had previously provided medical reports dated 25 July 2024 (JHB5.1) and 11 September 2024 (ST12) and various medical letters and reports providing recommendations for the Applicant to transfer to different roles due to stress and anxiety.
2. Dr Gerges notes in his report of 11 September 2024 that the Applicant has been suffering from PTSD, depression and anxiety stemming from a physical assault by a customer in the workplace in June 2008, and further racial and verbal abuse exacerbating her condition. He confirmed that he had only been treating the Applicant since 2021 and that the history taken was based on self-reporting by the Applicant, and not supported by objective contemporaneous material, other than clinical records with his practice.
3. His prognosis for the Applicant was uncertain, 'given the uncertain nature and complexity of her mental health issues'.[27]
4. Dr Gerges gave evidence that any physical assault can result in psychological impairment and that for the Applicant, there have been a number of contributing factors. Dr Gerges considered that the Applicant's depression was multifactored with longstanding depression since 2001, family violence and the work assault, but that he could not measure whether the incident had significantly contributed to the PTSD.
5. Under cross-examination, Dr Gerges conceded that he did not have much information or detail on the 2008 incident and was reliant on the Applicant's self-reporting, particularly given that her first attendance with him was a number of years after the fact. He also conceded that for the period after 2021, there are reduced instances where the Applicant referred to work issues recorded in his medical records, though the Applicant was still consulting him for other issues.
6. Dr Gerges stated that fear could potentially cause an Applicant not to submit a claim or not wish to speak of the trauma again as a valid medical reason and believed that could explain the delay of 15-16 years, notwithstanding he discussed the claims process and time limits, by way of the passage of time to submit a claim.

1. Dr Arun Gupta, independent psychiatrist, provided oral evidence, supplementing his three medical reports dated 2 October 2024, 1 May 2025 and 5 November 2025 commissioned by the Respondent.[28]
2. Dr Gupta confirmed the contents of his medical reports with one amendment on page 2 of his report dated 1 May 2025 that he now has a Diploma of Law to add to his qualifications, recently issued.

1. Following a video assessment of the Applicant on 27 September 2024, Dr Gupta considered in his first report that, "her PTSD and major depressive disorder with anxious distress are consistent with the reported cause of the cumulative trauma over time with Services Australia. There are other problems like diabetes and hypertension which have complicated her psychological condition."
2. He qualified the report during oral evidence, however, noting that the first report was prepared with the primary focus on fitness for work and how to aide the Applicant in returning to her duties, rather than litigation or causation.
3. Dr Gupta diagnoses the Applicant as suffering from PTSD with major depression and anxiety and reported that the onset of the Applicant's condition was around 2001, however it became manifested around the time of the assault by the customer at work in 2008 resulting in the need for antidepressants as treatment and had become more prominent since September 2023 with the escalation of the family violence.
4. It was opined that the Applicant has no work capacity presently due to her psychological injuries, "The nature of her medical condition and the severity of her symptoms would make it impossible for her to continue working at this time."
5. Dr Gupta's medical report of 1 May 2025 sets out a detailed history based upon a thorough medical examination of the documentation provided to him.
6. Dr Gupta again confirms his diagnosis of PTSD, and major depressive disorder with anxious distress, considering the PTSD and major depressive disorder to have been aggravated since September 2023 stemming from the Applicant's son's severe mental health condition, which deteriorated significantly at that time, necessitating the implementation of a restraining order.
7. He notes the Applicant's worsening major depressive disorder also coincides with her son's declining health, "It appears that her pre-existing condition of major depression and PTSD is more closely tied with her son's struggles and various psychosocial factors rather than the stress of dealing with Services Australia."
8. Dr Gupta was of the view that even had the Applicant's employment circumstances been different, she would still have faced a diagnosis of major depressive disorder and PTSD due to the ongoing nature of her stressors outside of employment.
9. The medical evidence is unambiguous and in agreement that the Applicant presently suffers from PTSD and major depressive disorder with anxiety. Dr Gupta noted in response to the Applicant's cross-examination that his diagnosis throughout his reports has remained the same, though with the further documentation by way of summonsed medical records, the causation changes somewhat, taking into account the trajectory of difficulties.
10. Dr Gupta was firm in his reasoning for the diagnosis and when the Applicant enquired as to how he could read all of the reports and say all of the work stress did not significantly affect her, he calmly but resolutely responded that he did not deny there were serious issues with Services Australia, but the aggregate of all the factors suggests the psychological injuries are not due to employment.
11. In explaining it further to the Applicant, Dr Gupta advised in forming his conclusion, he reviewed over 500 pages of clinical notes and there is an absence in those clinical records from 2018 of any significant work incident, but then in 2023 all the issues resurfaced with the decline in her son's health and for the Applicant, that stress has manifested as the incident with Services Australia becoming prominent in her mind.
12. Dr Gupta also confirmed on the basis of his assessment and review of the medical documentation, there was no medical reason to explain the Applicant's delay in submitting a claim for workers compensation, and certainly not since 2018 when the effects of her psychological injuries on her functioning seem to considerably reduce.

1. The preliminary issue of whether the Applicant's notice is compliant pursuant to section 53 of the SRC Act is a very live issue in these proceedings and is a threshold question which is determinative of whether the SRC act applies and therefore, whether the Applicant is entitled to make her claim for compensation under that legislation.
2. In the matter of Lees v Comcare[29] the Full Federal Court helpfully sets out the logical sequence of considerations before a decision-maker can determine the question of liability under section 14 of the SRC, stating at [35]:

"[a determination of section 14] ...will involve findings on the following matters. First, that an appropriate notice of injury has been given to the relevant authority as required by s 53 of the Act; secondly, that a claim for compensation has been made as required by s 54 of the Act; thirdly, that the person who made the claim or on whose behalf the claim was made was an "employee" at the time of the alleged injury (ss 4 and 5); fourthly, that the employee suffered an injury (s 4); and finally, that the injury has resulted in death, incapacity for work or impairment."[30]

1. The Full Federal Court makes it clear from this decision that before considering liability under section 14 of the SRC Act, common sense dictates that there must first be a decision that the worker has satisfied their obligation to provide appropriate notice under section 53 of the SRC Act before moving through the list. In this matter, there have been appropriate concessions in reversal of that list and it is not in issue that the latter two factors have been satisfied, being that the Applicant was an "employee" and that she has suffered an 'injury' pursuant to section 4(1).

1. If it is decided that the Applicant did not provide the requisite notice, the Application must fail on that ground alone, even before consideration of the medical evidence and the cause of the Applicant's psychological conditions can or should take place and irrespective of the diagnosis and what has contributed to it.
2. Where notice has not been given to the relevant authority 'as soon as practicable after the employee becomes aware of the injury' the Applicant may still be deemed to have satisfied the notice requirements pursuant to section 53(3) of the SRC Act if the following factors can be found in favour of the Applicant:

(a) there has been no prejudice occasioned against the Respondent by the delay; > > (b) the delay was due to death or absence from Australia; > > (c) the delay was due to ignorance or mistake on how to make a claim; or > > (d) there is some reasonable cause on why the notice was not provided as soon as practicable on becoming aware of the injury.

3. Further to Lees v Comcare, the Full Federal Court provides the leading authority on the construct of section 53 of the SRC Act in its decision of Leach v Comcare[31] (Leach) and when notice is to be considered to have been satisfied such that an Applicant is able to pursue compensation for an injury under the SRC Act.
4. In that matter, the Applicant was a police officer who made a claim in 2016 for psychological injuries suffered prior to 1997 as a result of his employment before termination, almost 20 years after the injury. Comcare, as the Respondent, determined that it was prejudiced as a result of the delay in the Applicant submitting notification of his claim and the delay was not due to ignorance or mistake. At first instance, the Tribunal affirmed the reviewable decision. The Applicant appealed to the Federal Court, which was dismissed. He then appealed to the Full Federal Court, which upheld the earlier decisions that the Applicant had failed to adequately establish the burden of proof against a finding that he had not provided notice of his claim as soon as was practicable.
5. Similarly, in the subject proceedings, the Respondent contends that the Applicant has failed to provide notice of her claim 'as soon as practicable upon becoming aware of the injury'. The Applicant in this matter agrees and accepts that she did not do so but seeks for her claim to be deemed compliant in any event, requiring careful consideration of the factors outlined above. The reference within the clinical note of Dr Won on 16 July 2008 and the corresponding Progress Notes clearly indicate the Applicant was aware of the connection between her psychological injuries and the incident and/or her work. The Applicant has not refuted this and I make a finding that she was aware of the injury on at least 16 July 2008 and the connection between the work incident and her psychological symptoms when she attended her treating general practitioner reporting the incident on 24 June 2008.
6. It then becomes a matter of whether any of the exceptions to the prescribed timeframe under section 53(3) of the SRC Act apply in this instance.

1. The Respondent contends that the Applicant's delay in notification has caused significant prejudice to the Respondent. It asserts that the 16 year delay means it was denied the opportunity to interview witnesses at the time of the incident or generally about the Applicant with the majority of staff in team leader/management positions in 2008-2009 no longer working with Services Australia, and for those remaining, such as Ms Liggos, her account is only vague given the passage of time.
2. The Respondent also contends that in circumstances where both doctors indicate the Applicant is now wholly incapacitated from work given the chronic nature and lack of adequate treatment they did not have the opportunity to have her assessed at the time to determine and support her with the best course of treatment to mitigate her position, but also were not able to obtain a contemporaneous 'point in time' assessment with regard to her pre-existing condition from 2001.

1. As set out in Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Limited,[32] cited in Leach, the construct of section 53(3) of the SRC Act allows an exception to the requirement for an Applicant to notify of their claim or give notice of their injury as soon as practicable upon becoming aware of it, and regarding the burden of proof, the Full Federal Court was of the view that:

"Hence the person relying on that exception bears the onus of proving the facts

Necessary to establish that the exception exists."

1. The Applicant is reliant on the exception, and therefore she bears the onus of proof to persuade the Tribunal the facts support the exception being in play.
2. In her various written Statements, the Applicant agrees that it is entirely unsatisfactory to rely on the vague recollections of Ms Liggos as to what occurred some 16 years prior. I would tend to agree, and I note that Ms Liggos was not required to give evidence at the Hearing. The passage of time has resulted in Ms Liggos' recall of what occurred being somewhat diminished and it is questionable as to whether any weight can be given to the written statement except where it is corroborated by the Applicant.
3. Further to this, the Tribunal notes any other witnesses to the incident or subsequently no longer work with Services Australia. Had the notification been made earlier, recollections may have been preserved in a crisper format, and more witnesses available to give evidence to provide a fulsome context to the incident and subsequently.
4. The Applicant's own memory of what occurred is somewhat tarnished with the passage of time, noting she could not recall the date of the injury and submitted her claim on the basis of the incident occurring on 16 July 2009, when it was 12 month's earlier.
5. The Applicant does not provide any defence to the Respondent's contention it was prejudiced by the delay.
6. Dr Gupta reports in his supplementary report that earlier diagnosis could have resulted in a treatment plan incorporating psychotherapy as well as medications, which may have helped in the longer term, with a more positive future prognosis.[33]
7. I accept this to be true and that had earlier notification happened, the Applicant may have had the opportunity to obtain earlier treatment, which she has been unable to access due to financial constraints.
8. Where it is clear there is conjecture as to pre-existing symptomology and its interplay with the claimed condition, the absence of a contemporaneous medical report assessing the Applicant adds to the prejudice of the Respondent.
9. Accordingly, I consider the Respondent has been prejudiced by the 16 year delay, sadly also to the detriment of the Applicant in not being able to access proper funding for treatment to aide in the recovery of what is now a chronic condition.

1. Again, noting the onus is on the Applicant and no assertions or evidence have been advanced by her that she was absent from Australia such that she was unable to lodge her notification earlier, I find that this exception cannot apply in the circumstances.

1. The Applicant contends that as a new immigrant unfamiliar with the processes and the legislative requirements, initially she was unaware of what she was required to do and that her employer should have been responsible for doing this and her supervisor to whom she verbally notified of the incident should have lodged an incident report. With respect, that is not the legal requirement nor the employer's obligation. It is also clear from the number of incident reports lodged by the Applicant that she was aware of how to issue an incident report, if not specifically notify the Respondent, as the relevant authority.
2. I can accept there would have been a period of time where the Applicant would not have been aware of her rights to seek compensation or where to glean that information upon immigrating to Australia, however, by the time of the incident in 2008, the Applicant and her family had been residing in Australia for almost ten years and should well have been familiar with the requirements.
3. Further to this, the Applicant conceded under cross-examination that she was aware of her rights to make a claim for compensation for injuries arising during the course of employment as early as 2003. Dr Gerges also noted in his oral evidence that he discussed making a claim with the Applicant and the applicable timeframes and to obtain legal advice.
4. Accordingly, while ignorance could account for some of the time delay, it does not account for the entire 16 years where, based on the Applicant's own evidence at Hearing, she was aware she could make a claim relating to work injuries as early as 2003 when she enquired about it with her doctor, or in the alternative, in 2017 where the topic of workers compensation was raised with her team leader and she indicated she could make a 'big compo' claim. I make a finding that ignorance or mistake did not account for the entirety of the delay of notification.

1. Once she became aware of the entitlement to seek workers compensation, the Applicant states that she deliberately decided against submitting a workers compensation claim because she was fearful of reprisal and losing her employment, especially in circumstances where her husband was not working and they relied upon her income. She says she only decided to do it in 2024 because she wanted to stand up for herself. The Respondent asserts that the reason she submitted her claim in May 2024 was after she was denied a request for miscellaneous leave.
2. Dr Gupta provided evidence that there was no medical reason why the Applicant could not submit her claim earlier than 2024. Dr Gerges states that he believes fear of discussing trauma could be a logical reasonable medical basis for any person to delay raising a claim.
3. While I accept this may be true in some circumstances, in the subject proceeding, I prefer the evidence of Dr Gupta, given that he had access to volumes of medical documentation relating to the Applicant and directed his answer specifically to the Applicant based on her history and background. Dr Gerges, on this point, answered in generality without specific reference to the context of the Applicant. I also note that Dr Gerges was not provided with the full ambit of medical documentation made available to Dr Gupta for review.
4. The Respondent contends that the Applicant was fully aware of, and had no hesitation in submitting numerous incident reports, seeking workstation and ergonomic adjustments about other incidences of customer verbal abuse, racial comments or threats. It says that the Applicant's assertion she feared reprisal where she had received additional support on reporting of these other issues has no proper basis and indeed is undermined by the fact she did submit numerous incident reports.
5. Lastly, the Applicant asserts that it was the responsibility of her employer to notify of the claim as they "could see I was deteriorating mentally within the workplace" over the years and Services Australia have failed her in this regard by not asking her if she was okay. I reject this submission.
6. The Applicant lodged multiple incident reports throughout her employment for customer verbal abuse or aggression. She was familiar with the process and had engaged in that preliminary process of lodging incident reports with some frequency (regrettably because the nature of her job caused her to be in a position of being verbally abused).
7. Accordingly, I cannot accept that there was a reasonable cause for not submitting the claim for the entirety of the delay, accepting the evidence of Dr Gupta in that regard.
8. While other decisions of the Tribunal present as a guide for future decisions and consistency of decision-making within the Tribunal is in the public interest, Full Federal Court decisions are binding and set a precedent that I must follow and cannot deviate from.
9. As set out above, the Federal Court case law on the question of whether notice has been provided as required is relatively settled law and I must abide by that.
10. The Full Federal Court decision in Leach dictates that where an Applicant has not notified the relevant authority, being Comcare, of their injury as soon as practical upon becoming aware of the injury and cannot satisfy or make out the burden of proof of the exception of section 53(3) of the SRC Act on the evidence, the claim cannot be considered compliant, and therefore an Applicant is precluded from making a claim for compensation, notwithstanding whether they have a diagnoseable injury (which in this case, is agreed).
11. As notice under section 53 of the SRC Act is a threshold question and I find that the Applicant does not satisfy the exception criteria of subsection 53(3) to be able to claim compensation under the SRC Act, the Application fails and I am not required to consider further whether the Applicant's employment significantly contributed to her psychological condition, nor whether it arose due to reasonable administrative action.
12. Following the rationale of Deputy President Forgie in Humphrey and Comcare:[34]

"I do not need to make a finding that he does not suffer from those conditions or that all or any of them are an injury or disease within the meaning of the SRC Act or its predecessor, the 1971 Act. Section 53, whether in the SRC Act or the 1971 Act, is concerned with a question that arises before those findings need to be made."

1. It is not within my power, nor the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to order an inquiry or investigation into the processes of Services Australia, as sought by the Applicant, and whether it is adhering to their policies and obligations to provide a safe workplace to its employees under occupational health and safety legislation.
2. The only orders that the Tribunal is empowered to make are reflected in section 105 of the SRC Act to affirm, set aside or vary the reviewable decision of the Respondent. It does not have powers 'at large' to make orders to review systemic issues, or failings, within a workplace relating to the wellbeing and safety of its employees.
3. It is important to emphasise, however, that racial vilification, threats of sexual abuse and harm to one's family is entirely abhorrent, and no employee should have to accept that type of behaviour ever.
4. What the Applicant encountered from customers, as set out in her various incident reports, is unacceptable and I am sorry that she had to experience that. I have no doubt it would cause any person fear, distress and have a significant impact on one's mental health.

1. Unfortunately, however, I must apply the case law set out by the Full Federal Court and the 16 year delay in notifying the Respondent of the injury prohibits the Applicant from being entitled to make a claim for workers compensation under the SRC Act, taking into account the evidence before the Tribunal.

1. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the reviewable decision is affirmed.

Respondent Solicitor: C King, McInnes Wilson Lawyers

[1] T-Documents filed by the Respondent pursuant to section 23 of the ART Act, T2

[6] Applicant's Statement dated 23 October 2025, Joint Hearing Book filed 10 December 2025, JHB3.2

[12] As referenced in Ofori v Australian Capital Territory [2025]

[13] Comcare v Mooi (1996) 69 FCR 439

[16] ST1, pg 6, contained within the JHB

[29] Lees v Comcare [1999] FCA 753

[30] As referenced in the Respondent's Statement of Facts Issue & Contentions, JHB3.1

[31] Leach v Comcare [2021] FCAFC 134; 285 FCR 326

[32] Chugg v Pacific Dunlop Limited [1990] HCA 41; (1990) 170 CLR 249

[34] Humphrey v Comcare [2016] AATA 783 cited in the Respondent's SOFICS