1. I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
2. At the hearing of this matter the applicant was represented by Mr Tanner of counsel, instructed by Ms Azer, solicitor, and the respondent by Mr Robison of counsel, instructed by Ms Horn, solicitor.
3. The applicant closed the claim for weekly compensation on 16 January 2025. The application was amended accordingly.

1. The following documents were in evidence before the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) and considered in making this determination:

(a) Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) and attached documents;

(b) Reply and attached documents, and

(c) Applications to Lodge Additional Documents dated 27 August 2025,

19 September 2025, 8 October 2025 and 21 October 2025.

1. The respondent sought leave to cross examine the applicant. This was opposed by the applicant, who provided a current medical certificate certifying unfitness to be cross examined on the day of the hearing. There was no dispute on the medical evidence before me, particularly medico legal evidence, that the applicant had suffered, and continues to suffer, psychological injury. I declined the respondent's application in these circumstances.

1. The following documents, which will be discussed to the extent that is necessary in my reasons below, were referred to in submissions:

(a) statements of the applicant dated 17 May 2025, 3 July 2025, and

6 October 2025;

(b) statements of [CDB], [CAL], [BWV], and [CTX] dated 15 August 2023,

14 September 2023, 18 September 2025 and 18 September 2025, respectively;

(c) unsigned document marked as a statement of [CAL] dated 18 September 2025;

(d) report of Dr Kumagaya, psychiatrist qualified by the applicant, dated

16 January 2025;

(e) reports of Dr Anand, psychiatrist qualified by the respondent, dated 4 April 2025, 6 August 2025 and 9 September 2025;

(f) clinical records of Dr Su, the applicant's treating medical general practitioner (GP),

(g) respondent's correspondence, including letters dated 6 July 2023 and

3 August 2023, and

(h) respondent's policies including Code of Conduct.

1. The respondent also referred in its submissions to its notice for production on the applicant.

1. The ARD was amended to close the claim for weekly compensation, with a cessation date of 16 January 2025.
2. Both parties applied for de-identification of parties' names and all witness names, as referred to in the witness statements noted above, on grounds of potential reputational damage of all entities in their continuing professional work and business, as well as relations with significant stakeholders in the community, among other relevant matters. Leave is granted and an order is made for de-identification of parties and all witnesses as requested.
3. The respondent relied upon, among other matters, a defence pursuant to s 11A of the workplace injury management and Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of discipline and/or performance appraisal.
4. Central to this issue was a causal argument that the disciplinary process commenced with an incident on 15 June 2023 between the applicant and [BWV], and the ensuing discussion on the same day between the applicant and [CDB]. It was submitted that in considering this issue it was necessary to also consider the issue of causation of injury, as it was the events of 15 June 2023 and thereafter which the respondent said were causative, in relation to the question of whether the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the employer's actions, and that such consideration required consideration of causation of injury and a rejection of earlier events being relevantly causative.
5. The applicant objected to this approach to the issue of causation, as it said that this issue had not been raised in the respondent's dispute notices, nor prior to the hearing of this matter, and indeed no dispute had been raised as to injury or causation of injury other than specifically in relation to the s 11A defence that had been raised. It was argued that the submissions now being put forward by the respondent conflated issues of causation in relation to s 4 and s 11A, which are entirely separate, and such conflation is not permissible and should be rejected.
6. The ARD pleaded a disease with a deemed date of injury of 15 June 2023 and relied upon a cause of injury "materially contributed to by the nature and conditions of his employment with the respondent between 28 January 2020 to 15 June 2023..." The ARD listed a number of incidents which were outlined in the applicant's statements and generally noted in the history recorded by Dr Kumagaya. In my view, these pleadings were consistent with the applicant's statements that were before me in this matter and with the report of Dr Kumagaya.
7. There were two dispute notices issued by the respondent that were before me:

(a) the first, dated 12 February 2024, noted circumstances only in relation to events on 15 June 2023 and, among other matters, asserted that the employee's actions on 15 June 2023 wholly or predominantly caused the applicant's psychological condition, and referred only to a medical certificate of Dr Su dated 20 June 2023 in respect of a brief reference to lack of support from the principal for an activity suggested by the applicant, as well as an anxiety disorder. It was noted that the applicant had not yet returned a signed witness statement, and reliance was placed upon witness statements of employees of the respondent as to circumstances of an application process said to precede events on 15 June 2023, as well as the events on 15 June 2023 and thereafter. This dispute notice did not refer to any other circumstances prior to 15 June 2023. The notice did not otherwise refer to or rely upon any other medical evidence, such as a medical report. Injury was not disputed, and

(b) the second, dated 5 February 2025, responded to the applicant's request for review. This notice traversed a statement of the applicant dated 18 July 2024, which was not before me, but which outlined the circumstances of the applicant's difficulties and conflict in his employment with the respondent prior to

15 June 2023. This dispute notice specifically noted these circumstances. The dispute notice also noted receipt of a report of Dr Kumagaya dated

16 January 2025, and the notice specifically noted the opinion and history recorded by Dr Kumagaya, which was in accordance with the applicant's statement noted above and also his statements in these proceedings. This notice simply stated that it maintained its decision to dispute liability in accordance with s 11A, and that it would arrange for an appointment with Dr Anand. The respondent at that time again did not rely upon any medical report in support of its decision. Injury was again not disputed.

1. In my view, at the time of the dispute notice dated 5 February 2025, the respondent was cognizant of, and dealt with and recorded, the applicant's case as provided by his statement and the report of Dr Kumagaya, that is the aggravation of psychological injury in the nature of disease as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment.
2. The two issues, 'injury' and the causation test in s 11A(1), are different, and need to be considered separately.[1] I do not accept the respondent's submission to the contrary.
3. I accept the applicant's submissions in this regard. Injury as pleaded in the ARD, was not disputed. An issue as to s 4(b) does not arise for determination. Leave was not sought by the respondent pursuant to s 289A. It is not a matter for the applicant to prove injury in these proceedings. The causation test in s 11A must be considered separately to that of injury.
4. It was submitted by the respondent that the discussion between the applicant and [CDB] on 15 June 2023, following the incident with [BWV] earlier on the same day, was either a disciplinary discussion in itself, or alternatively a discussion with respect to the disciplinary proceedings that were commenced by subsequent correspondence.
5. The applicant submitted that the discussion with [CDB] on 15 June 2023 was in the nature of a mediation and amounted to no more than a suggestion to resolve conflict between two coworkers. It was submitted that this was not disciplinary action.
6. The respondent submitted that the disciplinary nature of this discussion was evidenced by the applicant conceding in his statement evidence that he agreed to apologise to

[BWV], with discussion that he should not have acted in this manner. 7. I do not accept this submission. This discussion of an apology or behaviour to my mind does not necessarily amount to action taken with respect to discipline, without more. In my view, the discussion that the applicant had with [CDB] on 15 June 2023 (which [CDB] incorrectly referred to as 22 June 2023) was not a discussion with respect to discipline. 8. Importantly, [CDB] continued in his statement that "I felt my conversation with [the applicant] would lead to a sit-down discussion with [the applicant and [BWV]]." There was no indication in [CDB]'s recall of his conversation with the applicant that he was considering disciplinary action at that point in time, as distinct from at a later time. 9. Indeed, [CDB] stated that after the applicant ceased work and [CDB] received an email from the applicant with a Workcover Certificate of Capacity [CDB]"...involved HR as the incident involving [the applicant] was not resolved and would require investigation". He said that [BYY] of HR conducted the initial investigation. 10. The statement of [CAL], senior executive, human resources, confirmed in his signed statement that he was made aware by [BYY], who reported to him, of conduct issues regarding the applicant, and thereafter the respondent's actions followed, including the correspondence to the applicant dated 6 July 2023 and 3 August 2023. 11. In my view, this evidence confirms that at the time of the conversation with the applicant on 15 June 2023 [CDB] was seeking a mediation resolution, and was not taking action with respect to discipline, as it was only after receipt of the Certificate of Capacity that [CDB] said that the matter required investigation. 12. While a broad view is to be taken of the expression "action with respect to discipline", and it is capable of extending to the entire process involved in disciplinary action, including the course of an investigation,[2] in this case a decision to investigate, and thereafter conduct the investigation, did not take place until after the applicant sustained psychological injury. 13. The hearing of this matter was not conducted on the basis of the performance appraisal aspect of s 11A. This was appropriate, as there was no acceptable evidence before me of any action taken by the respondent with respect to a performance appraisal process, before or after 15 June 2023, notwithstanding observations made by [BWV] and [CTX] as to their own views. 14. It follows that the respondent's defence pursuant to s 11A fails. Action with respect to discipline did not take place until after the applicant suffered injury. 15. If it is considered that I am wrong, that is if the issue of causation with respect to s 11A does permit consideration of causation of injury, or at least the circumstances of injury prior to

15 June 2023, and also with respect to the characterisation of the discussion between the applicant and [CDB] on 15 June 2023, then I turn to a brief consideration of the evidence. 16. First, as to the circumstances of injury relied upon by the applicant prior to 15 June 2023, the respondent submitted, relying inter alia on Hamad v Q Catering Limited,[3] that:

(a) the history of incidents or particular circumstances provided by the applicant and noted by Dr Kumagaya, was on the whole generalised and insufficient to account for injury as alleged by the applicant, in respect of matters prior to 15 June 2023;

(b) there was no contemporaneous medical evidence of any difficulties at work prior to 15 June 2023, and

(c) issues as to the applicant's credit where against his account of circumstances at work prior to 15 June 2023. This point was also relied on in respect of capacity. I will discuss credit issues below.

1. It was submitted by the applicant, referring to Navitas English Pty Ltd v Trinh[4] (Navitas), that it is not simply a matter of proof of all objective circumstances when considering the stress and difficulties at work that the applicant faced prior to 15 June 2023. In this regard, Navitas[5] applied the principle that the correct enquiry is whether "conduct which actually occurred in the workplace was perceived as creating an offensive or hostile working environment, and a cognizable injury followed".[6]
2. I accept the applicant's submission. In my view there was actual conduct in the applicant's workplace, which created an offensive or hostile work environment, or which was perceived by the applicant as such. The statements of witnesses relied upon by the respondent,

[BWV] and [CTX], when read as a whole, provide support to the applicant's case that he suffered injury arising from his work from January 2020 to 15 June 2023. 3. In particular, I find that the following matters arose from [CTX]'s statement:

(a) she said that the applicant was always whingeing about something that was neither formal nor substantial;

(b) although she said that she had not observed symptoms or unusual behaviour of the applicant prior to 15 June 2023, but she said that as time went on he became more dishevelled in appearance;

(c) she said that the applicant struggled with his workload from 2020 because he was not able to effectively manage it or multitask. In my view, this is a concession that the applicant struggled with his workload, notwithstanding [CTX]'s observations as to the applicant's approach to his work tasks;

(d) she said that the applicant was not easy to work with;

(e) she said that the applicant projected strong self-confidence and an attitude of being superior and above the need to comply with policies and procedures;

(f) she said that she was "not aware" of any circumstances where she or

[BWV] embarrassed or made the applicant feel incompetent. To this observation she added that "the fact was, he was highly incompetent". In my view, these comments do not represent a denial that there were circumstances which the applicant may have regarded as being made to feel embarrassed or incompetent;

(g) in my view, the latter quoted observation by [CTX]as to the applicant's competency, which was generalised, was at odds with the assessment of [CDB], who pointed only to matters in respect of the administrative part of the applicant's position with no observation as to generalised competency at all. Her comments in this regard, in addition to her other comments in relation to the applicant's competency, which were in relation to the administrative aspects of his position, must in my view be considered in light of the absence of any evidence before me, including the evidence of [CTX], [BWV] and [CAL], that such concerns had been communicated to the applicant, nor of any performance appraisal process at all prior to 15 June 2023, consistent with an absence of reliance at the hearing upon performance appraisal evidence as a defence in the relevant sense of s 11A. That is, in my view it is likely from the evidence of [CTX] that the applicant was made to feel incompetent as he said;

(h) [CTX] also said that there were times when the applicant had taken extended leave due to stress and his absences had become noticeably more frequent over the previous five years leading to a considerable number of days off work. Although not medical opinion, this to my mind is evidence confirming the applicant's evidence that he had come under increasing stress in his work over an extended period leading up to 15 June 2023;

(i) [CTX] said that she knew that the applicant isolated himself, but this she said was because he knows his work performance was poor. In my view, this confirms the applicant's evidence of isolation, although I place no weight on her speculative remark about what she thought the applicant knew;

(j) [CTX] conceded that there was a further workload when a new syllabus must be implemented, which from the evidence was from shortly after the time that the applicant rejoined the respondent in about May 2020. She conceded the applicant was struggling in his work but she said it was not due to the new syllabus, rather he had a poor work ethic. Notwithstanding [CTX]'s interpretation, this represented a concession that the applicant was struggling in his work, although she thought that it was not due to the new syllabus itself.

(k) given the overall tenor of [CTX]'s observations as to the applicant's character and ethics, in my view it is likely that there was a dysfunctional and indeed toxic relationship between [CTX] and the applicant, and indeed between [BWV] and the applicant, dealt with below, I give little weight to her evidence in terms of her explanations as to the applicant's conduct, and

(l) on balance, [CTX] conceded that there was conflict between herself and the applicant. She agreed that she would have sat away from him in meetings and that she was frustrated with him and that she would have "called [the applicant] out in meetings for tasks that he had not done". She also conceded and agreed that the relationship between herself and the applicant and also between [BWV] and the applicant "was not great". She said that the applicant regularly went over her head and over the head of [BWV] if the applicant did not like their answer.

1. In relation to the statement of [BWV], I find that:

(a) he said that the applicant was challenging to deal with and was dismissive, lack to understand understanding and was consistently abrupt in communication. He said that the applicant would test his patience;

(b) he said that uncooperative and rude behaviour was typical for the applicant;

(c) he said that he imagined that any stress that the applicant felt was when he did not meet deadlines. He said that after missing deadlines the applicant would often ask him what to do. [BWV] said that it had clearly been explained in emails that he had sent to staff. In my view this supports the applicant's contention that he had asked for help and had not been provided with support, notwithstanding [BWV]'s assertion otherwise. This is also not inconsistent with the applicant's case that it was as a result of his employment duties over a period of time from January 2020 until 15 June 2023 that he sustained injury;

(d) [BWV] said that the applicant in his leadership role, as distinct from his classroom duties, was largely ineffective and he often avoided his responsibilities in this regard;

(e) he said that he was not aware of any circumstances where [CTX] or he embarrassed the applicant or made him feel incompetent. As noted above with respect to [CTX], this is not a denial that such circumstances took place. I prefer the applicant's account in this regard and find that there were circumstances in which the applicant was made to feel embarrassed or incompetent in discussions with [CTX] or [BWV];

(f) he said that the applicant had a poor work ethic in relation to his leadership position and he was often lazy and incompetent in this regard. [BWV] said that he maintained a high level of professionalism with the applicant despite his poor work ethic. This in my view is evidence of a toxic and dysfunctional relationship for the reasons given above in relation to [CTX], and

(g) [BWV] confirmed that in respect of the applicant staying in the classroom to do his work [BWV] and [CTX]had in fact spoken to the applicant in the classroom, although not in terms of a confrontation. This confirms that this event took place, which the applicant perceived as being part of a hostile environment.

1. Also notable, and of importance, were matters either not mentioned or not satisfactorily explained by the respondent's evidence:

(a) in relation to the statement of [CDB], there was no mention at all of the meeting between [CDB]and the applicant in November 2022, in which the applicant said he spoke to [CDB] in [CDB]'s office about the problems he was having with [BWV] and [CTX]. The applicant said he told [CDB]they were difficult to work with and unhelpful, and that they tried to embarrass him and make him feel as though he was incompetent. The applicant said that nothing changed following this meeting and nothing was done to try to resolve the issues that he was experiencing, making him feel dismissed and isolated. [BWV] and [CTX]denied knowledge of this meeting. I find that the meeting of November 2022 with [CDB] took place as described by the applicant, and that no action was taken by the respondent to address the issues, and that the applicant felt dismissed and isolated;

(b) in about January 2020, the applicant obtained his classroom position with the respondent, having previously been employed by the respondent until about 2011. He said that in about February 2020 he was also appointed to a leadership role following the resignation of the previous incumbent. The applicant had no prior experience in a leadership or management role. He said that a new syllabus was introduced for 2020 which entailed a heavy workload. He said that he assumed that he could rely on [BWV] and [CTX], two of the three directors responsible for operational matters, but neither provided help or support. [CTX] said she was obliged to do the applicant's management or administrative work, and [BWV] pointed to the procedures in place for regular meetings and discussions. There was no explanation as to what proactive steps, if any, the respondent took to assist the applicant in his circumstances from January 2020 in a new leadership or management role, without prior experience in such a role, and with a new syllabus. In my view the explanations offered by [CTX] and [BWV] were reactive in nature, that is following the issues that were the source of the applicant's complaints. Their observations otherwise generally substantiate his complaints, as noted above. I find that the applicant was not provided with adequate support in his new role from January 2020, and

(c) there was no statement from [CYZ], nor any other acceptable evidence, in response to the applicant's evidence that on his return to employment with the respondent, she hardly spoke to him for about a year and a half, and as a result he felt alienated and unsupported. The applicant also said that he complained to [CYZ] about [CTX] disregarding his nomination of a student, and that no action was taken and he felt unsupported and dismissed. As noted, there was no statement before me from [CYZ] to address these issues. I accept the applicant's evidence.

1. [BWV] and [CTX] also described in detail the application for excursion process and the altercation that took place between [BWV] and the applicant on 15 June 2023.
2. In my view, [CTX]'s description of that altercation was vague and impressionistic. She said that the applicant spoke in a loud voice, "yelling actually" and that she did not remember the exact words, but his tone was hostile and rude. Despite not remembering exact words, she recounted remarks by the applicant that he was going on the excursion and that [BWV] had no authority to stop the applicant. She said that the applicant said that there would be consequences such as the applicant leaving work sick. She said that the applicant's behaviour was particularly aggressive and linked this to a history of disregarding instructions or rules and she referred to what she said were his shortcomings in that area and of accusations of unfairness made by the applicant in phone calls between the applicant and [BWV]. She did not provide details of these phone calls nor an explanation as to how she was aware of the details of these conversations.
3. In my view, [CTX]agreed that the applicant spoke loudly in the altercation with

[BWV], in accordance with the applicant's description of that conversation. She went further, and described this as yelling, which the applicant said he did not do. In my view, the difference is probably of some small degree which is not significant, given the background of the difficult relationship that I have noted above and her descriptions of the applicant's behaviour and tone. She described the applicant's behaviour as aggressive, but did not say why, instead recounting a history of his shortcomings. I do not prefer [CTX]'s account in this regard. 4. [BWV] said that:

(a) the applicant spoke loudly and aggressively. He also said that the applicant was yelling and "there was no mistake. It was categoric." For the same reasons given in relation to the observations of [CTX], there is a little significance in this aspect and in any event I do not prefer the evidence of [BWV] on this point, for the same reasons as noted above;

(b) the applicant stormed into his office on 15 June 2023. He said that the applicant stood just in front of his desk, leaning in and making thinly veiled threats. However, the only threat to which [BWV] referred was that the applicant said that if his request was not approved there would be serious consequences and they would be short a teacher as he would not be back and he would be off work on sick leave. This was an exaggeration by [BWV], even if unintentional, given the background of the difficult relationship and by his account the stressful circumstances of the incident, and

(c) the applicant stood just in front of his desk and leaned in and made thinly veiled threats. In my view, there was an element of impressionistic ambiguity in this description. Notwithstanding her other vagueness, [CTX] was more precise. She said that she was in the office with [BWV] when the applicant entered the room. She did not say that he "stormed" into the room. She said that [BWV] was seated at his desk and she was standing nearby and that the layout of the room had his desk positioned against the wall closer to the door and that the applicant had come into the room from the corridor and stood near the door. She did not say that the applicant stood just in front of the desk, rather she said that he stood near the door. She did not say that the applicant had leaned in, nor that he had made threats to [BWV], although she recounted a remark without remembering the exact words as noted above. Given my view above that there has been an element of exaggeration in [BWV]'s account of the incident, most likely unintentional, as well as the more precise description offered by [CTX] which is not in accordance with his somewhat vague description, I do not prefer the evidence of [BWV] on this point.

1. I do not accept [BWV]'s description of the applicant's words as being "thinly veiled threats", whether singular or plural. [CTX] did not describe them as a threat, thinly veiled or otherwise. In my view, the applicant's words, even if they are accepted exactly as reported by [BWV], which is doubtful, can also be accepted as a description of the applicant's mental state at that time, as described by the applicant. This in my view is entirely consistent with the matters that I have found above, and is consistent with an element of exaggeration by [BWV] against a background of a difficult relationship and the stressful circumstances of the incident in question.
2. The respondent in submissions referred to the threat of continued employment of the applicant posing a threat of causing psychological injury to others. This submission was made in the context of reasonableness of the respondent's actions, not to the description by [BWV] of threats in the course of the incident on 15 June 2023.
3. As to credit, it was submitted by the respondent that the applicant's credit should be impugned because:

(a) there was an inadequate response to by the applicant to its notice for production. The respondent said that there had been only partial compliance, which was known because the applicant had recommenced employment. However, it was the applicant who provided this information to the respondent that he had returned to employment. The respondent pointed to the applicant not complying with its notice in respect of the job application for his employment and also in respect of certain bank statement records. The applicant responded that he had provided an explanation in his statement of 6 October 2025 in which he explained the position in respect of the bank statements and that he had produced all bank statements in his possession and control. He also said in that statement that he had completed an application to teach with the New South Wales government and that he had received interim approval to teach, copies of which were attached to his statement. He also said that he confirmed his earlier statement that he had not worked at all in the period for which he climbed weekly compensation. In my view, the applicant has provided an adequate explanation and his credit is not impugned;

(b) the circumstances of his threats and behaviour on 15 June 2023 were such that no reliance should be placed on his account of his behaviour prior to

15 June 2023. I have found on the facts otherwise and I do not accept this submission;

(c) his denial that he received the correspondence from the respondent dated

6 July 2023 and 3 August 2023 should not be accepted in light of email service. I was not taken to evidence in this regard, although presumably it is a reference to an unsigned document marked as a "statement" of [CAL] dated

18 September 2025, which in turn referred to certain emails. I was not taken to those emails, which were not before me. Given the contested attack on the applicant's credit in this regard, I would expect there to be a signed statement with copies of the emails attached. Neither were provided. I am therefore not persuaded that these documents have probative value and I place no weight on them and consequently I do not accept the respondent's submissions in this regard, and

(d) the respondent submitted that the applicant's evidence that was said not to have been challenged was instead the result of the respondent not being permitted to cross-examine the applicant. As the respondent had applied for cross-examination, which was objected to and not permitted, the respondent was entitled to make its submissions on credit which I have considered, and not accepted.

1. The factual matters that I have found above in my view support the history recorded by

Dr Kumagaya. There was a fair climate for him to provide his opinion. This is because he recorded, consistent with my findings above, the applicant was subject to:

(a) critical and hostile interactions by colleagues in public forums such as faculty meetings, resulting in distress to the applicant;

(b) inadequate support from colleagues in and around work tasks, including in respect of a new syllabus, and also including a dismissive response from a colleague to the applicant's reaching out when the applicant was told to read his email;

(c) instances of exclusion by colleagues, including avoidance, which in my view was a reference to [CYZ];

(d) dismissal of his suggestions, such as in relation to a list of high achieving individuals, which in my view was not denied in the statement by [CTX];

(e) no further changes in the work environment following the meeting with [CDB]in November 2022, and

(f) on 15 June 2023 the applicant attended the office of [BWV] and stated amidst deteriorating mental health to "put the excursion back or I'll walk over and resign and then go to my doctor".

1. Given the findings that I have made above in relation to the accounts given by [CTX] and [BWV] as to the words that were said in the latter's office on 15 June 2023, I prefer the evidence of the applicant in this regard and I find that the words recorded by

Dr Kumagaya in this regard were based on accepted evidence. 2. Dr Kumagaya noted the onset of listed psychological symptoms reported by the applicant from in around the beginning of 2023. Dr Kumagaya diagnosed major depressive disorder with an anxious distress and alcohol used disorder in remission, and that his employment with the respondent was the main contributing factor to the aggravation of a pre-existing depressive and an anxious syndrome. In my view, this opinion is consistent with the matters that I have found above. I accept the opinion of Dr Kumagaya in this regard. 3. Dr Anand in his initial report opined that the history of bullying and harassment and being undermined and unsupported had aggravated a pre-existing major depression condition. He did not record the history of the incident on 15 June 2023, although he otherwise recorded a history which was generally in accordance with the matters noted above. In his subsequent report of 4 April 2025, in which details of the incident of 15 June 2023 were provided, together with statements of [CDB] and [CAL], Dr Anand, on the assumption that the evidentiary statements were true, changed his opinion and said that there was no objective evidence to substantiate the applicant's claims and that the clinical records and other information indicated that the "escalation to formal psychological injury", requiring treatment and leave, occurred subsequent to events of mid June 2023. On the same assumption,

Dr Anand opined that the applicant's psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by action taken by the respondent with respect to discipline. He did not mention performance appraisal in this formulation. There was no reference by Dr Anand to the statements of [CTX] and [BWV]. 4. Dr Anand expressed his opinion or opinions as to causation on the assumption noted above. I have found otherwise, contrary to that assumption. It follows that there is no acceptable evidentiary foundation for Dr Anand's opinion and I do not accept it. 5. The respondent's defence pursuant to s 11A relied upon the opinion of Dr Anand, which I have not accepted. It follows that the respondent's defence pursuant to s 11A fails. 6. In relation to the matter of Hamad, I do not accept the respondent's submissions as to its applicability in this matter. In particular Hamad was a matter in which the decision maker at first instance restricted his consideration to the pleading in the ARD in which psychological injury was said to have been sustained on a particular day, when injury was on the evidence said to have been sustained over a period of time leading up to that particular day and the respondent had sought to rely upon its s 11 A defence in respect of events in that proceeding period. It was found that the decision maker at first instance was in error in that approach and that issues of injury and s 11A causation could be considered, although such issues must be considered separately. In Hamad it was the applicant who sought to compartmentalise the issue of injury to a particular date, and in this case it is the respondent which has sought to do the same. In my view, the evidence in this case does not support the approach advocated by the respondent and Hamad is distinguished. 7. There were also submissions in relation to the clinical notes and the certificate of capacity. The clinical notes, being the initial clinical note of 20 June 2023 by Dr Su, referred only to the excursion application, and not to the altercation on 15 June 2023, nor to a history of bullying and harassment. The initial certificate of capacity of Dr Su dated 20 June 2023 referred only to lack of support for an activity suggested by the applicant. 8. I do not accept the respondent's submissions in this regard. Care should be exercised when considering clinical notes urged to be accepted contrary to the applicant's evidence.[7] The history of the applicant's difficulties in the employ of the respondent was lengthy and somewhat complex, with findings noted above. Additionally, in my view the brevity and purpose of a certificate of capacity indicates that it should not be given greater weight than the history and opinion expressed in the report of a qualified psychiatrist. 9. I have accepted the opinion of Dr Kumagaya as to causation of injury. I have made findings in relation to the matters noted above. I find that the applicant sustained injury, being an aggravation of a pre-existing major depressive condition, as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment with the respondent from January 2020 to 15 June 2023, deemed to have happened pursued to s 4(b)(ii) on 15 June 2023. 10. As to capacity, it was submitted by the respondent that the applicant could not demonstrate economic loss because of his failure to comply with the notice for production. This point was not developed in terms of authority or reference to an absence of any other evidence. In any event, I have accepted the applicant's explanation as to the documents that he produced or was not able to produce in response to the notice for production. 11. The respondent also pointed to the applicant's qualifications and experience as a teacher and a lawyer in his previous employment. The respondent also noted that in a pre-employment questionnaire completed by Dr Su on 17 January 2025 it was certified that the applicant had recovered 75% to 80% and it was expected to the complete recovery with a return to teaching. This it was said, meant that there was no medical impediment to the applicant returning to teaching in addition to other work which he could do. 12. The applicant submitted that the first contemporaneous record of any capacity for employment was the report of Dr Su noted above. It was submitted that this was after the closure of the applicant's claim for weekly compensation and that there was no contemporaneous evidence of the applicant's capacity in respect of the period of the claim for weekly compensation other than certificates of capacity certified the applicant as having no capacity for work. It was submitted that the opinion of Dr Anand was based on speculation as to what the applicant might have been able to do at some period of time in the past, that is prior to when he was examined by Dr Anand. Dr Anand provided an opinion as to a "staggered" increase in capacity from about December 2024. 13. In my view, the respondent's submissions in relation to capacity and the opinion of Dr Anand, involve a concession that the medical evidence, as distinct from the submission in relation to the notice for production, was to the effect that the applicant had no capacity for work before December 2024. I have not accepted the respondent's submissions in relation to the applicant's production of documents in respect of the notice for production. I find that the applicant had no capacity for work prior to December 2024. 14. This leaves the period from December 2024 to 16 January 2025 to be considered. The response submitted that the form completed by Dr Su on 17 January 2025 indicated a capacity for work of five days per week up to eight hours per day and that it was not simply a case of switching from one day to the next from no capacity to work to the capacity certified by a Dr Su. 15. I do not accept this submission. This in my view, is an invitation to speculate as to matters of capacity prior to 17 January 2025. Similarly, Dr Anand examined the applicant on

13 March 2025 for his initial report. Dr Anand had not examined the applicant in the period from December 2024 to 17 January 2025 and in my view his opinion as to a staggered return to work was speculative. He agreed that the exercise required him to hypothecate and that he found that it was very difficult to predict with absolute certainty when the applicant would have likely been able to undertake alternate employment. 16. It seems to me from the opinion of Dr Su that capacity could only be ascertained in light of an attempted return to work, which took place in about February 2025. This is also not inconsistent with the opinion of Dr Anand, which was expressed in uncertain and heavily qualified terms. I find the applicant had no capacity for work until 17 January 2025. 17. There was no agreement as to pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE). The applicant relied on its wages schedule, which indicated $2,818.25 as at 27 March 2024, $2,868.70 as at 1 April 2024, $2,925.50 at 1 October 2024 for the claimed period. There were no submissions by the respondent as to PIAWE, nor did it lodge a wages schedule, as directed by me on 22 August 2025. 18. Rule 68(2) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules provides that "If a party wishes to dispute the accuracy of a matter in the schedule of earnings, the party must lodge and serve on the other parties a schedule of earnings containing full particulars of the party's allegations of the earnings." 19. Rule 68(4) provides that "a matter not disputed by a party under subrule (2) is taken to be admitted by the party." 20. I find that PIAWE in this matter is $2,818.25 as at 27 March 2024, $2,868.70 as at

1 April 2024, $2,925.50 as at 1 October 2024. There will be an award pursuant to s 37 in favour of the applicant for the claim for weekly benefits from 27 March 2024 to

16 January 2025. 21. There will be a general order pursuant to s 60.

[1] Flanagan v NSW Police Force [2017] NSWWCCPD 33 at [81].

[2] Northern NSW Local Health Network v Heggie, 2013] NSWCA 255 at [52], [56-58] per Sackville AJA.

[3] [2017] NSWWCCPD 6.

[4] [2017] NSWWCCPD 52.

[6] State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249; 5 DDCR 286.

[7] Mason v Demassi [2009] NSWCA 227.