1. During the period from August 2019 until December 2021, there followed a series of at least seven properties at which the Applicant resided none of which were in the Ballina area. He went to live at a property in Tweed Heads South (some 90 km from Ballina), Banora Point (some 84 km from Ballina), Coombabah (some 130 km from Ballina) and Mermaid Waters (some 110 km from Ballina). This refusal to reside either in Ballina or sufficiently close enough to Ballina became the subject of tension between the Applicant and his employer.

1. This tension resulted in symptoms first noticed by the Applicant in December 2021 for which he sought treatment in February 2022. These symptoms manifested in a claim for workers compensation on 4 May 2022. This claim propounded symptoms in the realm of "severe depression and anxiety". The claim attributed these symptoms to "excessive workplace bullying, intimidation, harassment and negligence." This initial decision was the precursor to the decision under review.

1. In this first decision, the delegate: (1) accepted the Applicant had an ailment comprising "severe depression and anxiety"; (2) was not satisfied that the Applicant's employment significantly contributed to his claimed condition; and (3) noted that the employer's decision to not permit the Applicant to reside in Queensland on a permanent basis constituted "reasonable administrative action".

1. The Applicant unsuccessfully sought review of this first decision. On 7 September 2022, a delegate of the Respondent affirmed the first decision and denied liability for payment of any compensation consequent upon the Applicant's claimed condition of "severe depression and anxiety". As mentioned earlier, this second decision comprises the decision under review for present purposes. In terms of the three critical questions to be answered, the delegate found as follows: first, as to whether the Applicant had sustained a condition, or an aggravation of a condition, the delegate found that the Applicant had sustained a condition which included anxiety and depression; second, as to whether that condition was significantly contributed to by the Applicant's employment, the delegate said this:

"I do not agree that an employee's efforts to find accommodation is employment related. This is because such efforts are not related to your duties of employment. However even if it is within the scope of your employment, I do not find that it is your employment per se that affected your search for rentals and contributed to your condition. Rather it was your personal requirements that rendered your search for rental accommodation so uncommonly difficult. That is, your two pets and your budget. On no test can either be said to be related to your employment."[3]

1. Third, in terms of whether the Applicant's condition resulted from reasonable administrative action by the employer taken in a reasonable manner, the delegate said "As I have found your condition was not significantly contributed to by your employment, I have not considered whether or not your condition was sustained as a result of reasonable administrative action."[4] On these three grounds, the delegate affirmed the first decision dated 1 July 2022 and declined liability for "severe depression and anxiety" under s 14 of SRC act.

1. There followed an application to this Tribunal on 19 October 2022 for review of the second decision made by the delegate on 7 September 2022. The basic (but not exclusive) configuration of the oral evidence is as follows: For the Applicant: expert witness - Dr David Storor, Psychiatrist; lay witnesses: comprising Robert Ware and Peter John Taylor. For the Respondent: expert witness - Dr Velimir Kovacevic, Psychiatrist; lay witnesses comprising Mr Peter George, Mr Tony Ensbey and Mr Aaron Gibbs. The instant hearing proceeded before me on 12, 13 and 14 March 2025 and received oral evidence from (1) the Applicant and (2) Dr Storor (on 12 March); (3) Mr Robert Ware and (4) Mr Peter George (on 13 March) and (5) Dr Kovacevic, (6) Mr Aaron Gibbs and (7) Mr Tony Ensbey (on 14 March).

1. With the agreement of the parties, post-hearing directions were made for the filing of written closing submissions. On 30 May 2025 I reserved this matter pending publication of my decision with accompanying written reasons.

1. The present exercise is, in essence, a determination of liability. The Tribunal must determine whether the Respondent is liable pursuant to s 14 of the SRC Act to compensate the Applicant for his claimed condition of "severe depression and anxiety". This determination requires determination of the following questions:

(a) whether the Applicant suffers or suffered from an "ailment" or an "aggravation" of an "ailment" in accordance with how those terms are defined in the SRC Act?;

(b) if the first question is answered in the affirmative, the next question becomes whether the "ailment" or "aggravation" was contributed to by a "significant degree" by the Applicant's employment with NBN Co-Ltd such that the claimed "ailment" or "aggravation" is a "disease" in accordance with how those terms are defined in the SRC Act?; and

(c) if the second question is answered in the affirmative, the next question becomes whether the "disease" was suffered as a result of "reasonable administrative action" taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the Applicant's employment with NBN Co-Ltd?

1. Section 14 of the SRC Act is the progenitor of the terms and concepts necessary to be identified and addressed in determining this application. It is the section that imposes a liability on the Respondent to compensate an applicant in certain circumstances. It provides that: "...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 incapacity for work or impairment." [My underlining].
2. Section 5A(1) of the SRC Act[5] defines the term "injury" to mean:

"(a) a disease suffered by an employee; or > > (b) an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment; or > > (c) an aggravation of a physical or mental injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee (whether or not that injury arose out of, or in the course of, the employee's employment), that is an aggravation that arose out of, or in the course of, that employment; > > but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee's employment." > > [My underlining]

3. In terms of the underlined words and phrases in the above quoted definition of an "injury", s 5B(1) of the SRC Act[6] defines it as follows:

"(a) an ailment suffered by an employee; or > > (b) an aggravation of such an ailment; > > that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee's employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee." > > [My underlining].

4. "Reasonable administrative action", although defined in s 5A(2) of the SRC Act, is not propounded by either party and is of no relevance in the instant application.
5. Section 4(1) of the SRC Act defines an "ailment" as: "any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition (whether of sudden onset or gradual development)."
6. With further reference to the definition of "disease", s 5B(2) of the SRC Act provides as follows:

" ...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: > > 1. the duration of the employment; > 2. the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment; > 3. any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation; > 4. any activities of the employee not related to the employment; > 5. any other matters affecting the employee's health.

This subsection does not limit the matters that may be taken into account."

[My underlining]

1. Section 5B(3) of the SRC Act defines "significant degree" to mean "a degree that is substantially more than material." Importantly for present purposes, it should be noted that the Parliament's incorporation of s 5B into the SRC Act was intended to require a claimant to demonstrate a stronger connection between that claimant/employee's employment and a disease which is asserted to result from that employment.[7]

HOW THE EVIDENCE TALKS TO THE THREE QUESTIONS COMPELLED BY SECTION 14 OF THE SRC ACT.

The nature of the Applicant's role with NBN Co-Ltd

1. It is not in dispute that the Applicant applied for and accepted an offer to fill the position of Field Engineer in Ballina. By its very definition, this role required the Applicant to be, as it were, "in the field" and located such that he could restore network faults within mandated timeframes. This is clear from the evidence of Mr Gibbs:

Mr Clark: "...His position....was a field engineer. Was it designed to, as it were, be in a position to respond to faults in the NBN system?

Mr Gibbs: That's correct. So under the Wholesale Broadband Agreement we need to be able to meet timeframes to respond and restore network faults and to ensure that communications is upheld to the communities, which is part of the reason why the business case got across the line to have another position in that Ballina-Byron Bay area.

Mr Clark: That proposition which you've just spoken to, can you say as to whether or not Mr McHugh understood that business imperative?

Mr Gibbs: Well that was the basis of the position that was advertised, he applied for and then was subsequently successful."[8]

1. It is not unreasonable or unfair for the Tribunal to infer that the location of where the Applicant resided was a matter of concern for NBN Co-Ltd. As pointed out by Mr Gibbs, NBN Co-Ltd was bound to meet responsive timeframes stipulated in the Wholesale Broadband Agreement. It follows that the Applicant's capacity to properly discharge his work duties was critically contingent upon the length of any travel time between his home or residential base and the site of a network fault requiring repair.

1. A further contingency referable to the Applicant's capacity to properly discharge his role involved a requirement for compliance with NBN Co-Ltd's Fatigue Management Procedure.[9] Its purpose was "....to define the requirements for the identification and management of fatigue-related risks facing nbn employees."[10] The orientation of this Procedure was that the lesser the distance between (a) where the Applicant resided and (b) the location of a given network fault requiring repair, the lower the prospect of any breach of that Procedure.

1. The terms of this Procedure put the Applicant on notice that NBN Co-Ltd would "Monitor workloads and work priorities of employees and ensure fatigue-related risks are discussed regularly and adequately addressed or controlled."[11] It stipulated clear guidelines for work scheduling and planning such that "Total work time should not exceed 12 hours in a 24 hour period for field and shift workers. Individual Fatigue Risk Assessment is required if this is exceeded" and "Total work time should anticipate both work time and driving time. Total work time (including driving) should not exceed 12 hours in a 24 hour period. Individual Fatigue Risk Assessment is required if this is exceeded."[12]

1. The Procedure "...required a minimum break period of 10 hours between shifts"[13] and, critically for present purposes, "Encouraging the use of accommodation in close proximity of the work location when working away from home." It is therefore somewhat trite for the Applicant to now suggest NBN Co-Ltd's legitimate interest in, and concern about, the location of his residence was either unwarranted or overbearing behaviour that somehow spawned his claimed condition.

1. As best as I understood the material, a primary aspect of evidentiary tension between the parties related to the reason behind the Applicant's difficulties with securing compliant accommodation for the purposes of discharging his role as a Field Engineer such as to safely meet the requirements of the Wholesale Broadband Agreement (binding NBN CO-Ltd) and the Fatigue Management Procedure (binding him). As will be seen, the only plausible and rationally supportable explanation for the Applicant's repeated failure to secure compliant long term accommodation was due to his eviction from multiple residences on account of his pets.

1. NBN Co-Ltd was content with him securing rental accommodation at Kingscliff, Tweed Heads South and Banora Point because these locations were consistent with the Fatigue Management Procedure. Things became difficult in around September 2019 when the Applicant told NBN Co-Ltd of his intention to reside over the border in Queensland. He was told "...this would not be an acceptable long term arrangement."[14] This situation persisted until the early part of 2021 culminating in NBN Co-Ltd making its position clear to the Applicant in these terms:

Thank you for reaching out in regards to your request for relocation. In terms of your role and geographical location for residence the business case that modelled the field engineer position in the Ballina/Byron/Lismore vicinity to endure work load and fatigue could be managed along with the large oncall area.

I note you have made several residence relocations North of this area but within NSW since being awarded the position and this was accepted to be within 30min of the area the position was advertised.

I need to be clear that there is currently no work allocation available in QLD for the NSW North Coast team and will not likely be an area where we expand our workforce in the future given the existing presence in QLD.

You have addressed some of the concerns raised from our conversation last week however I'll ask you make response [sic] to the following:

How do you propose to safely perform your role from Coombabah (QLD), considering fatigue management protocols while still maintaining full productivity of your work day and the oncall roster?

If an interim short term relocation is to be agreed nbn need confidence that you can still fulfil the expectations of your role with zero to minimal business impact.

In response to this email please confirm your commitment to the caveats below in addition to your previous response to enable our review of the proposed interim residency location.

• Regular documented evidence of your progress on proposed NSW property locations, rental applications and/or other documented means applications to secure a home address within NSW. Tony [Ensbey] will set out the cadence of the required updates, work with your 1up manager on what is deemed suitable in terms of locality.
• Additional travel hours incurred as a result of the temporary relocation will be absorbed in personal time. ...
• The maximum time period the business can support this interim relocation is 6 months however it is expected all efforts are made and documented by you to execute a relocation at your own costs to a location suitable.

1. The pet / eviction issue is not a mere construct of the Respondent. The issue has consistently been part of the historical matrix around the Applicant's difficulties with securing suitable and compliant accommodation. First, it was initially noticed by Mr George in August 2020 who says this in his statement:

"In approximately early August 2020, I picked Mr McHugh up from his house in Banora Point and we drove together in my vehicle to Newcastle for work purposes. When I picked him up, I saw that Mr McHugh had a large dog inside the house. This was the first time I was aware that he had a pet. I asked Mr McHugh if he had a pet door. I was curious where the dog would toilet as he would be away from home for several days. Mr McHugh said there was no pet door and that he would clean up the mess when he got home."[16]

1. This portion of his statement was put to Mr George during his evidence-in-chief who confirmed its accuracy. Further, it was put to Mr George that in his earlier oral evidence to the Tribunal, the Applicant had effectively called him a liar and denied there was ever any circumstance where Mr George observed a dog in the Applicant's then premises at Banora point. Mr George squarely took issue with the Applicant's denial of his evidence in these terms:

Mr Clark: ".....Well, he effectively called you a liar. Said, 'That's a lie' in respect of a conversation what you observed with the dog, and the conversation that you had with him regarding the dog, at Banora Point. What do you say to that?

Mr George: It's not true. Yes. Because when we, when we pulled up, he went inside to grab some gear. And while he was inside, the dog stuck its head out through the blinds. And it's not something you see all the time, so I took note. And when he came out I just asked him, I said, "Have you got a doggy door?" And he goes, No, no, it's a boy'. 'What are you with, you know, with it going to the loo in there? And he said, 'I'll just clean it up when I come home.' I found that quite odd."[17]

1. There is little or no basis for this Tribunal to find Mr George's evidence is untruthful. Why would Mr George invent this evidence? What Mr George saw (the dog sticking its head through the window blinds) and what he says the Applicant told him about care and management of the dog's hygiene while he (the Applicant) was away from that property on work commitments, is entirely consistent with other aspects of the evidence referable to the pet / eviction issue. Second, and by way of further example, Mr George's evidence is corroborated by that of Mr Ensbey who in his statement noted: "I would regularly speak to Mr McHugh about his difficulties in obtaining rental accommodation. I was aware that he was struggling to find a property that would accept his pets. However, he never communicated to me that he may be suffering from mental health issues or associated stress."

1. Third, the Applicant's own evidence is supportive of a finding that his repeated failure to secure compliant long-term accommodation was due to his eviction from multiple residences on account of his pets. In his evidence-in-chief, the Applicant identified and confirmed the contents of his two statements. The first of them was made on 24 May 2022 as part of his "Workcover Statement". At the commencement of this statement, under the heading "Accommodation Problems," the Applicant refers back to the period September 2019 and initially propounds his position of wanting to "...obtain a property located in the region of Gold Coast QLD, within 30 minutes of the NSW boarder [sic]. With this solution I would have no issues in gaining a rental property or perhaps the opportunity to purchase my own home,..."[18] When initially mentioning this "solution" the Applicant also introduced the pets issue element: "[this solution...gives me] the chance to secure a stable property within my budget for myself and for my family (Pets) to avoid any more housing issues or financial struggles."[19] [My emphasis].

1. He repeats this position - including reference to his pets - later in this first statement under the heading "Depression Problems" which he says he experienced in March 2020. He said "I proposed a different solution to my manager Peter, that my housing crisis should be resolved if I was able to receive some leniency or flexible work arrangements to move an additional 30 minutes north of the NSW boarder [sic]. This will enable me to house myself and my family (pets) without fear of eviction or struggle."[20] [My emphasis]. Then, under the heading "January 2021" the primacy of pets issue behind the Applicant's difficulties in securing compliant rental accommodation becomes more apparent when the Applicant says this:

" Shortly after new year's day, whilst visiting my family in Sydney I received a phone an email from my real-estate questioning why I have a dog and cat in my current rental property that STRATA did not approve, I informed them that it was a temporary situation and I have a full-time pet sitter taking care of them, I informed the real-estate that once I return to Tweed, I would resolve all issues immediately. I was told that due to my breach, I was being evicted and police will be involved.

After 3 weeks off work, my symptoms had only gotten worse as my real estate enforced my eviction. I once again swallowed my pain and pushed my return to Tweed even though I was petrified of what hardship I was about to further endure to keep my career. ... Completely out of options, I felt I must do everything in my power to keep my job, which meant keeping my management happy and trying to house my family (pets). [21]

1. It is neither unsafe or unreasonable to infer (and find) that the breach and eviction referred in the immediately preceding quotation was due to the Applicant's pets. Likewise, there is little or nothing to cavil with the proposition (and finding) that the fundamental difficulty behind the Applicant's difficulties with "keeping my management happy" resulted from an incapacity to source geographically or situationally compliant accommodation because of this pet issue.

1. The second of the Applicant's two statements he affirmed during his evidence-in-chief was made on 4 July 2023. In this statement as well, he makes clear reference to the criticality of the pets issue and how it explains his repeated failure to secure long term compliant accommodation. In this second statement, it can be seen how the pet issue repeatedly features as an obstacle:

"[42] Prior to moving, my new manager, Aaron Gibbs said to me that I would have to live in Byron Bay, despite there being no depot there, as it was geographically the midpoint destination of the area I was covering.

[46] I eventually found a property located at [street number redacted] Kingscliff St, Kingscliff on 10 May 2019. This is five minutes south of Tweed Heads and Aaron was fine with me living there.

[48] As my lease in the apartment in Kingscliff was only for three months, I had to then seek alternative accommodation, however this was extremely difficult due to the onset of Covid-19, the recent fires and the northern rivers floods, and the fact that I had 1 cat and 1 dog with me. Many rental properties did not allow for pets, and as such, I was further limited in options.

[50] I therefore managed to find a property at [street number redacted] The Quaterdeck [sic], Tweed Heads South on 20 August 2019 for a three month period. This allowed pets but was only a short term lease and was not extended. Once this lease was up, I had to again begin to find somewhere to live.

[51] After I had to leave the house in Tweed Heads on 20 December 2019, I was applying for as many properties as possible. I had applied for over 50 rental applications and was denied for every one. I was beginning to become very stressed that my pets and I would become homeless, so I reached out to my manager and explained to him the difficulties I was experiencing.

[53] In or around December 2019, I called Aaron [Gibbs] and again tried to explain to him that I was desperately trying to obtain a property near Tweed Heads and was only getting knocked back. Aaron then suggested to me that should not list my pets on the rental applications. As he had given me no other options or alternatives, I took his advice and was eventually accepted for another rental located at [street number redacted] Seaview Drive, Banora Point with a six month lease commencing on 20 December 2019.

[54] About three months into my lease at Seaview Drive commencing in December 2019, I had taken my dog for a walk late at night. One of the tenants saw I had a dog and complained to the real estate agent. As such, my lease was terminated in March 2020 and I was again forced to find somewhere to live.

[57] After many applications of not including my pets within the application, I was accepted for a property at [street number redacted] Glen Aye Drive, Banora Point for a periodic lease that commenced on 12 March 2020.

[58] As I was working full time, I often had to leave my pets at home in the yard. Whilst I was working my neighbour had saw [sic] the pets after looking over my fence and alerted the real estate agent. I again had my lease terminated on 14 December 2020 and had to find somewhere new to live.

[59] On 18 December 2020, I was lucky to secure a property, however, I did not include my pets on the application as I knew my job would be in jeopardy if I did not obtain accommodation near the Tweed region. This apartment was located on [street number redacted] Falcon Way, Banora Point.

[60] While I was visiting my family in Sydney for one week at or around 26 December 2020, a neighbour had again taken photos of my pets and had sent them to the real estate agent. I was then evicted and was given [sic] originally given 21 days to source somewhere to live."[22]

1. I will address the evidentiary contest between the Applicant and Mr Gibbs resulting from the Applicant's allegation about Mr Gibbs telling him not to list his pets on any rental applications. This allegation was put to Mr Gibbs during his evidence-in-chief and the following transpired between him and Counsel for the Respondent:

"Mr Clark: ... Now in paragraph 18 he alleges that you say - in your response to that problems obtaining rental accommodation - that you told him he shouldn't list his pets on any rental applications. What do you say to that?

Mr Gibbs: At no time would I suggest anyone lie to obtain any benefit. So I - as I've said in that statement, I refute that. I don't even recall that conversation happening, let alone a response to it. It's false in accordance with me."[23]

1. I am hard-pressed to understand any rational basis for Mr Gibbs advising the Applicant to mislead a real estate agent or landlord when entering a rental agreement. Mr Gibbs was only too well aware of the issue relating to the Applicant securing complaint accommodation. Why would Mr Gibbs advise the Applicant to do something that experience had shown would only perpetuate those difficulties? I will prefer the evidence of Mr Gibbs over that of the Applicant.

1. Fourth, up until 27 January 2021, the records referrable to the Applicant's consultations with general practitioners have nothing to say about the Applicant reporting any mental health symptoms as a result of his inability to find and retain compliant accommodation for the purposes of his employment. Yet in his second statement which I have quoted above comprising [60] of that statement, the Applicant recounts that he was visiting his family in Sydney at around Christmas time 2020. He further recounts that a neighbour noticed and took photographs of his pets and forwarded those photographs to the managing real estate agent which resulted in the Applicant's eviction from those premises as well.

1. At [61] and [62] of this second statement, he recounts the emotional impact of this eviction in these terms:

"I had found out this news whilst I was in Sydney. This evidence made me very stressed and anxious and so I attended upon Dr Malcom at South Penrith Southlands Medical Centre due to the severe mental impacts this was having on me. Dr Malcom had written me a medical certificate which I sent to the real estate. The real estate in turn gave me an additional few months to find another property.

I ended up staying in Sydney for longer then [sic] expected as I desperately needed help and was struggling mentally with the stress of being knocked-back from so many properties and not being able to find stable accommodation within the parameters set by NBN Co. Then returned from Sydney and left the property on 12 March 2021."[24]

1. The general practitioner, Dr Malcom Borland,[25] records in his clinical notes made on 27 January 2021, that the Applicant reported to him about "Work + Been stressed - work / family."[26] During a consultation on 3 February 2021, Dr Borland noted "discussion re personal issues."[27] In a further consultation on 7 February 2021 where the Applicant saw Dr Anthony Cao, the clinical record notes "3 days post cortisone injection cervical spine; Seen by Dr MB[28] for same; For medical certificate for work; Reason for visit: Medical certificate."[29]

1. The only reference in these clinical notes - at this specific juncture where the Applicant's second statement talks about him being "very stressed and anxious" about the neighbour taking photographs of the pets and alerting the real estate agent - to any psychological symptom goes no higher than 'Work + Been stressed - work / family.' His difficulty was not in finding compliant accommodation. The difficulty was that he was being consistently evicted from that compliant accommodation because of the pets/eviction issue. One is hard-pressed to form any credible connection between the Applicant's claimed feelings of stress and anxiety and this pets/eviction issue.

1. Fifth, the further evidence for the pets/eviction issue being the primary reason for the Applicant's failure to secure compliant accommodation can be found in his blacklisting by local real estate agents as a result of his multiple evictions because of his pets. In his first statement, he says:

"... I applied for endless homes in that short time. The locations ranged from Casino, Ballina, and every suburb up the coast to Tweed. I was rejected

by all real estate companies and then at that time, I found out that I was blacklisted due to my continuous evictions since living in the Tweed area due to the requirements set out by NBNco management. Completely out of options, I felt I must do everything in my power to keep my job, which meant keeping my management happy and trying to house my family (pets)."[30]

1. The 'continuous evictions since living in the Tweed area' clearly, and can only, relate to the pets/eviction issue. In his second statement, he says that: "Whilst I was in Sydney, I applied for another property at Banora Point, however found out I had been blacklisted by LJ Hooker due to my previous eviction and for not declaring my pets on my previous application."[31] The Applicant purported to overcome the pets/eviction issue via his brother who is a real estate agent. According to the Applicant's second statement, he "...told him I had been blacklisted and needed somewhere to live. My brother has contacts in the industry and put in a good word for me at a property located at [street number redacted] Sidney Nolan Rd, Coombabah. This is on the Gold Coast, over the border into Queensland."[32] The Coombabah property was not compliant accommodation for NBN Co-Ltd.

Did the employer offer sufficient latitude to the Applicant?

1. Following his return from Sydney in February 2021, and at the time of his securing the Coombabah property at the Gold Coast (some 110km from Ballina and 140km from Byron Bay), there were communications between the Applicant and the employer's representatives about compliant employment. In his statement, Mr Gibbs recounts some of these communications. It is worth dealing with them chronologically:
   • 8 February 2021: Mr Gibbs and the Applicant spoke on the telephone during which the Applicant told him he was unable to find compliant accommodation in New South Wales and that he would be moving to Queensland.[33] In a contemporaneous diary note of that conversation, Mr Gibbs further noted that a "QLD address may only be supported for an interim period of time... Work with Jo and Chris on what his plan needs to consider longer term."[34];
   • 5 March 2021: the Applicant wrote to Mr Gibbs seeking his approval to reside at the Coombabah property. In this email, the Applicant tells Mr Gibbs that "This will be a temporary solution until I can find another property in NSW, I will continue to apply for NSW properties whilst living in QLD, once I can attain property I will move back in NSW boarder [sic]."[35];
   • 10 March 2021: Mr Gibbs wrote back to the Applicant. I have earlier quoted this response and it appears at [26]. This response makes these specific points: "How do you propose to safely perform your role from Coombabah (QLD), considering fatigue management protocols while maintaining full productivity of your work day and the oncall roster?" [and] "If an interim short term relocation is to be agreed, nbn need confidence that you can still fulfill the expectations of your role with zero to minimal business impact."[36] [Emphasis in original];
   • 22 March 2021: the Applicant replied to Mr Gibbs' immediately preceding email. He said: "In addition to the fatigue issue, I can completely understand that this is a HSE[37] requirement in order to keep NBN employees safe whilst being on-call or traveling large distances for field engineers."[38] [Emphasis in original]. While offering no guarantees, the Applicant tells Mr Gibbs "...all I can guarantee is that all best efforts have and will be made to pass the fatigue management checklist."[39] Importantly for present purposes, the Applicant tells Mr Gibbs "This is a just a temporary solution, as time passes I should be able to update my current plan to further avoid any issue that may potentially result in work delays or fatigue related matters, I will continue to monitor this plan myself and report all my finding [sic] to my one up manager."[40]
2. Mr Tony Ensbey was aware of the abovementioned series of communications between the Applicant and Mr Gibbs. Mr Ensbey says that the relationship between he and the Applicant was "a very positive relationship."[41] He says they regularly spoke about the Applicant's difficulties in obtaining compliant rental accommodation. Mr Ensbey says "I was aware that [the Applicant] was struggling to find a property that would accept his pets. However, he never communicated to me that he may be suffering from mental health issues or associated stress."[42] There followed, on 6 August 2021, a discussion between Mr Ensbey and the Applicant. Mr Ensbey prepared a contemporaneous diary note of that meeting which I will now produce in its entirety:

"Follow up meeting with Chris McHugh on 6/08/21 - Re residential address

-The review period for Chris's current accommodation arrangements is over - 6 month review of current agreement to reside at Coombabah temporarily due to no accommodation available in Northern NSW.

Chris has been advised that it is no longer acceptable to reside as far north as he is on the Gold Coast & as per agreement needs to put plan in place to relocate back into NSW (or close to it)

-Chris has applied for numerous residences in Northern NSW from Ballina to the QLD border & has had no luck so far.

• Due to the changed dynamic of the Northern NSW team ( a new FE is based in Ballina ) & the fact that it would suit the business to have an FE in the far north of NSW - Both Aaron Gibbs & myself have agreed for Chris to live in QLD as a last resort - however only just across the border is acceptable - no further north than Currumbin. Chris has accepted this, however has had no luck so far securing any rental accommodation.

• Chris has advised that his current accommodation has offered him to extend the lease - which he doesn't want to proceed with. He has also advised that if he has to & if it saves his job he will move into a caravan somewhere in northern NSW just to satisfy our conditions

• Chris currently has approx 3 weeks left to vacate his current residence - He is currently waiting on numerous rental applications from Lismore/Ballina to Tweed Heads/Currumbin areas, however time is running out.

• There is a real chance Chris will be unsuccessful in finding suitable rental accommodation in the area specified.

• Chris is currently giving best efforts to relocate prior to 9th of September, which is when current lease expires."[43]

1. I refer to the bold portions of the above quotation. It seems clear to me that the Applicant was put on notice that the employer could no longer accept the Applicant's rental arrangements at Coombabah as compliant accommodation for the purposes of the Applicant's employment. With further reference to the bold portion, it is undeniable that the employer offered more than considerable latitude to the Applicant in terms of the situation of his accommodation. Up to this point, the employer was insisting that he must have accommodation in the previously stipulated area of far northern New South Wales. The Applicant is told that due to the changing dynamic of the employer's team of field engineers in northern New South Wales, a new field engineer had been installed in Ballina and was based there.

1. The Applicant was then told that, as a last resort, Messrs Ensbey and Gibbs would yield and tolerate the Applicant residing in Queensland - "however only just across the border is acceptable - no further than Currumbin." Even with this yielding latitude, the Applicant was unable to secure compliant accommodation. I now refer to the underlined portions of the quotation at [43]. During cross-examination, it should be noted the Applicant readily agreed with the content of those underlined dot points when they were put to him.[44]

1. Mr Ensbey notes that between about August 2021 and December 2021, the Applicant's work performance deteriorated and that he was telling the employer that work had been completed when this was not the case. Mr Ensbey further notes that the Applicant commenced a period of annual leave in December 2021 and did not return to work afterwards.[45] When this became apparent to Mr Ensbey, he arranged to meet with the Applicant at a café in Tweed Heads on 16 March 2022.

1. Mr Ensbey's contemporaneous diary note of that meeting notes the following: "Points of discussion - Chriss [sic] late notice of continuing to extend leave - impression that he is not coming back to work. Chris advised that he is planning a return to work & is sorry for the late notice to extend leave... I advised Chris that the expectation is that he lives in NSW. Chris then advised he had accommodation in a share house arranged in northern NSW. He would get back to me with details."[46] Things transpired unsatisfactorily between Mr Ensbey and the Applicant at this meeting. Mr Ensbey's contemporaneous diary note contains respective follow-up dates of 31 March 2022 and 6 May 2022 but next to each of these dates Mr Ensbey recorded: "I have received no correspondence from Chris."[47]

The medical evidence - local medical officers/practices

1. The material contains respective records from local medical practices. I will address each of those records in turn. First, records for the Tweed Family Practice appear in the material and disclose the following attendances:
   • 1 November 2019: the Applicant reported "...last 4 weeks wakes coughing green phlegm, coughs through the day[48];
   • 8 November 2019: the Applicant reported a bronchitis-type complaint[49];
   • 21 November 2019: the Applicant was reviewed for his previous chest infection issue[50];
   • 11 December 2019: the Applicant was referred for a chest x-ray, presumable in relation to his chest infection issue[51];
   • 17 December 2019: the Applicant was referred for pathology testing involving testing for "urine chlamydia, HIV syph HEP B? immune. Send pathology results to My Health Record[52];
   • 30 December 2019: the clinical record notes: "chlamydia confirmed; contact advice; HEP B vacc recommmneded [sic]"[53];
   • 4 April 2020: the clinical record deals with the Applicant "been getting into physical training - weights/boxing; right elbow pain;...clenching and gripping aggravates"[54];
   • 6 August 2020: the clinical record notes that this was a Telehealth consultation and that "in the last week occ [occasional] dry cough, irritated chest, feeling SOB [shortness of breath]"[55];
   • 7 August 2020: the clinical record notes that the reason for contact was that the Applicant "...was at ED [emergency department] yesterday with shortness of breath"[56];
   • 10 August 2020: the clinical record notes "COVID restrictions; can't go to Qld despite neg test...? Stress/anxiety"[57] [My emphasis];
   • 25 August 2020: the clinical record notes "normal ED review for SOB still worried; appears to be anxiety but not wanting this diagnosis."[58] [My emphasis];
   • 31 March 2021: the clinical record notes "Sore throat and swollen LN's; Getting more swollen; no cough or fever; no asthma...Reason for contact: Pharyngitis..."[59] [Emphasis in original];
   • 4 August 2021: the clinical record notes: "Panic attacks for six/12... Anxiety has had all life...On antidepressant more that [sic] 10 y ag- didn't help... Headaches since 14 yo... Saw Psychiatrist as kid and teenager...Reason for contact: Anxiety... Management: 1.Counselling..."[60] [Emphasis in original, emphasis with underlining is my addition];
   • 18 August 2021: the clinical record notes: "No history of DVT [deep vein thrombosis]; Has booked hinself [sic] in for AZ [AstraZeneca] vaccine"[61];
   • 29 September 2021: the clinical record notes: "Reason for contact: Anxiety...Actions: OXAZEPAM TABLET 15mg 1 daily if needed only for anxiety. Use sparingly to reduce risk of dependence. Do not use within 8 hours of skilled tasks."[62] [Emphasis in original];
   • 14 October 2021: the clinical record notes: "Reason for contact: request for another CXR [chest x-ray] and cervical XR [x-ray]"[63] [Emphasis in original];
   • 19 October 2021: the clinical record notes: "...Clinical review: Headaches for 18 years now; Temples; Happens 3 times a day...Management: 1. Bloods; 2.CT"[64];
   • 11 November 2021: the clinical record notes: "...trouble in last 2/7; vomiting and diarrhoea with assoc sweating...discussed - ensure not dehydrating... gained reassurance during consult that on right track"[65];
   • 15 November 2021: the clinical record notes: "... Phone consult: Diarrhoea 6 days; No blood; No pain; Nausea and vomiting settled; Missed work"[66];
   • 16 November 2021: the clinical record notes: "...Clinical review: diarhoea [sic] 7/7; ? Viral; ? Other; There 9 years; Lot of sickies; Management: 1.Bloods; 2.Faeces; 3.Cert; 4.Review Thur"[67]; and
   • 19 November 2021: the clinical record notes: "...Phone consult: Bloods/stool-nad; Stools now sloppy; No past bowel problems; Management: 1.Light diet; 2Avoid dairy for few weeks; 3. See pm."[68]

1. A holistic review of the above records confirms there are 21 consultation dates and that only four of them record any reference to any mental health symptom. And even then, none of those four clinical records have anything to say about whether or not the Applicant's difficulties with finding compliant accommodation for work purposes was in any way causative of those symptoms.

1. Second, the material contains reference to the records of the Mt Louisa Medical Centre in Townsville. Those records disclose the following attendances:
   • 7 February 2022: the clinical record notes: "...Had MH [mental health] breakdown 3/52 ago; Shakey; Saw a psychologist; Had trauma in childhood; Needs to find a psychologist here; Not sure trigger for recent MH breakdown;...Reason for visit: New patient, multiple issues."[69]; [Emphasis in original; emphasis with underlining is my addition].
   • 8 February 2022: the clinical record notes: "...Did Zung socre [sic] online; Your score was 64 out of a possible 80; ... Stated he didn't think he's got MHCP [mental health care plan] done before; ... Happy to see Life Giving psychology... D/w private psychiatrist review... Stated he told work he would like 3 months off; Asked a medical certificate for 3 months; ... Impression: Anxiety and depression; Reason for visit: Anxiety and Depression, MHCP."[70] [Emphasis in original, emphasis with underlining is my addition];
   • 8 March 2022: the clinical record notes: "Seeing psychologist; Reading psychology books...Reason for visit: Medical certificate."[71] [Emphasis in original];
   • 4 April 2022: the clinical record notes: "Telephone Consult: Not so good since last review; Some improvement initially... Reason for visit: Telephone consultation."[72] [Emphasis in original];
   • 8 April 2022: the clinical record notes: "Telephone Consult: Trying to buy a property for mum at GC [Gold Coast] region... Stressed; Neck is sore; Advised to see a GP in GC... Asked for a new medical certificate..."[73] [Emphasis in underlining is my addition].

1. The Applicant consulted with the Mt Louisa practice on the five above-recorded occasions. True it may be that these records contain few references to reported psychological symptoms. However, nowhere in these records is there any reference to the Applicant attributing those symptoms to his employment with NBN Co-Ltd.

1. Third, I have earlier referred to the Applicant's consultations with Dr Malcolm Borland at the South Penrith Southlands medical Centre in the early part of 2021. The highest Dr Borland's clinical records go towards any suggestion of alleged impermissible behaviour by the employer being causative of the Applicant's currently propounded symptoms are the notations about "Work + Been stressed - work / family."[74] and "discussion re personal issues."[75]

1. On 8 June 2022, the Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Arash Amini interviewed the Applicant. Dr Amini's first report is dated 14 June 2022 and relevantly appears in the material. It notes:

"Chris came to see me with chief complaint of "looking for help to be honest". He also complained about lacking concentration. He reported feeling distressed progressively and consistently since 2019 because of perception of harassment by his managers and most of his colleagues in a coordinated manner. He believes his bosses try to give him hard time deliberately to control him and spread rumours to slander him."

Chris reported that the main stress in his life has been rental property crisis. He had to move a few times because he has had difficulty finding places that allow pets. He had to tell lies which resulted in him getting evicted 6 times in the last couple of years. His work has been putting him under pressure to reside nearby his workplace."[76]

1. Dr Amini reviewed the Applicant on 25 July 2022. His second report is dated 1st August 2022 and appears in the material. In this second report, Dr Amini says "I reviewed Christopher on 25/07/21 [sic] [77] for the second time... The information I have gathered so far indicates he has been suffering from a progressive decline in mental state for the last couple of years characterised by hallucinatory experiences and persecutory referential delusions."[78] [My emphasis].

1. The Applicant was cross-examined about Dr Amini's findings. This is what transpired between him and Counsel for the Respondent:

"Mr Clark: That is a report by Dr Amini to your GP on 14 June 2022?

Mr Clark: It records you came to him with chief complaint looking for help to be honest. What does that mean?

Applicant: I didn't want to tell people my struggles.

Mr Clark: I see. All right. You also complained about lacking concentration. You reported, 'feeling distressed progressively and consistently since 2019, because of perception of harassment by his managers and most of his colleagues in a coordinated manner'?

Mr Clark: So what was the coordinated harassment by other managers?

Applicant: I don't know what he means by that, coordinated.

Mr Clark: He recorded what you had told him, sir?

Applicant: What I spoke to him about was Aaron Gibbs was using the employees to tell me that he was going to fire me if I didn't stop complaining. I believe that's why he's written it in such a way.

Mr Clark: Okay. Third paragraph up from the bottom, it records. So it goes on to note, sorry, 'He believes his bosses try to give him a hard time deliberately, to control him, and spread rumours to slander him'?

Mr Clark: But he believes at work, and even in public, people stare at him, judge him, and talk about him?

Applicant: He put that part. I said that I feel anxious when I go outside, and I feel very self-conscious.

Mr Clark: Dr Amini spoke to you about having paranoid delusions, didn't he?

Applicant: He spoke about paranoia. Delusions, no.

Mr Clark: Third paragraph up from the bottom, 'Chris reported the main stress in his life has been rental property crisis. He had to move a few times, because he had difficulty finding places that allow pets. He had to tell lies, which resulted in him getting evicted six times in the last couple of years. His work has been putting him under pressure to reside nearby his workplace. That pretty much sums up the nature of your predicaments, doesn't it?

Applicant: Guess it would sum up, yes."[79]

1. In the first report of Dr Amini, it is noted that the main stress in the life of the Applicant had been his rental property crisis. But this notation is followed and conditioned by these words: "He had to move a few times because he has had difficulty finding places that allow pets." In cross-examination, the Applicant was asked to particularise or explain his perception of harassment by his managers and most of his colleagues in a coordinated manner. His was not able to do so and in fact, could not explain Dr Amini's reference in his first report to the phrase 'in a coordinated manner.' When questioned about the reference to "hallucinatory experiences and persecutory and referential delusions" in Dr Amini's second report, his best response was that Dr Amini "...spoke about paranoia. Delusions, no."

1. I am satisfied Dr Amini's report (1) identifies perceptions and beliefs held by the Applicant about workplace harassment; (2) identifies the Applicant's difficulties with finding compliant accommodation as a "main stress in his life" but conditionalizes and verifies that observation with the specific words "...because he has had difficulty finding places that allow pets"; and (3) characterises the matters reported to him by the Applicant as "hallucinatory experiences and persecutory and referential delusions." None of this was satisfactorily displaced by the Applicant in his evidence or any other evidence he called.

1. The Specialist Psychiatrist, Dr David Storor has provided two reports. The first of them is dated 10 July 2023 and results from and in-person interview with the Applicant on 22 June 2023. Dr Storor reached the following conclusions which are recorded in this first report:

"Mr McHugh meets the criteria for an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct. He has suffered from an identifiable stressor, namely a reported protracted period of workplace stress, and as a result, has developed ongoing symptoms of anxiety, depression and anger dyscontrol."[80]

"In my opinion, Mr McHugh currently meets the criteria for a Major Depressive Disorder."[81]

"On cross-sectional examination, I could find no evidence to support a

"Currently, there is no evidence that he suffers from a psychotic disorder."[83]

"Mr McHugh suffers moderately severe symptoms of anxiety, depression and anger dyscontrol caused by workplace stress, reportedly a protracted period of workplace bullying and harassment by management."[84]

1. Dr Storor also furnished a second and supplementary report dated 27 November 2024 which resulted from a Telehealth interview with the Applicant on 28 October 2024. In this second report, Dr Storor makes these findings:

"Mr McHugh initially met criteria for an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct. He suffered from an identifiable stressor, namely a reported protracted period of workplace press [sic] carrying out his role as a field engineer employed by NBN Co. As a result of the reported workplace stressors, he developed persisting symptoms of depression and anxiety and anger dyscontrol. He became increasingly depressed, anxious and angry to the point where he left work in December 2021. He was unable to return to work due to the severity of his symptoms of depression and anxiety, and subsequently his employment was terminated in May of 2023.

Mr McHugh also meets criteria for a Major Depressive Disorder. With passage of time and ongoing work stress his mood deteriorated and, by on or around late 2021, his mood state had worsened to the point where it was consistent with the pervasive depression of a major depressive episode.

Sixteen months have elapsed since I saw Mr McHugh for initial assessment. There has been little or no change in his psychiatric condition since that time. He remains pervasively depressed. He describes passive thoughts of suicide."[85]

1. The Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Velemir Kovacevic, has furnished two reports. The first of them is dated 26 October 2023 and follows an interview conducted with the Applicant on 19 October 2023. In this first report, Dr Kovacevic reaches these findings:

"I concur with the diagnosis of the major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder."[86]

"I believe Mr McHugh is currently at the stage where he meets the diagnostic criteria for a major depressive disorder."[87]

1. Dr Kovacevic also furnished a second report dated 18 December 2023 pursuant to a request from the Respondent's representatives. In this report, Dr Kovacevic notes the Applicant's difficulties with securing compliant accommodation and being blacklisted by real estate agents "...has had significant contribution to the development of Mr McHugh's condition. This is based on Mr McHugh's self-reports and the records of his previous examinations."[88] Further, Dr Kovacevic noted "Interactions between Mr McHugh and his managers have significantly contributed to his condition. This is based predominantly on his self-report."[89]

1. To my mind, the evidence establishes that accommodation found by the Applicant in Kingscliff (one site); Tweed Heads South (one site) and Banora Point (two sites) were all acceptable by his employer. The evidence makes it abundantly clear that the Applicant's primary difficulty in sourcing and maintaining compliant accommodation related to his repeated evictions from premises as a result of his pets and/or as a result of him not disclosing those pets when initially securing a property to reside in and/or as a result of him being blacklisted by local real estate agents.

1. I have misgivings about the weight that should be attributable to the findings of Drs Storor and Kovacevic. In his supplementary report, Dr Kovacevic specifically (and repeatedly) refers to the Applicant's self-reporting about items such as (1) accommodation difficulties and (2) interactions with his managers. Indeed, both of these psychiatric experts produced whatever findings they made based on the Applicant's self-reporting about what he, and he alone, alleged about claimed impermissible workplace bullying and harassment by his managers. The critical difficulty with placing too much reliance on the opinions of Drs Storor and Kovacevic is that little or nothing of what the Applicant told them is corroborated by any credible ancillary evidence.

1. Quite the contrary. The totality of contemporaneous records of (1) the South Penrith Southlands Medical Centre_;_ (2) the Tweed Family Practice; (3) Mt Louisa Medical Centre in Townsville; and (4) the Consultant Psychiatrist, Dr Arash Amini - when examined in detail and assessed holistically have little or nothing to say about impermissible workplace behaviour by the Applicant's managers being causative of the psychopathological symptoms now said to be experienced by the Applicant. I am of the view that in a case like this, those contemporaneous records do carry significant weight and bring into sharp focus and seriously question the findings of Drs Storor and Kovacevic. This is especially so in circumstances where (1) in a discussion with his general practitioner on 7 February 2022, the Applicant could not even identify or nominate any triggering factors for his claimed mental health issues and (2) the findings of Drs Storor and Kovacevic post-date commencement of this claim.

1. In terms of the lay evidence, I prefer that of Messrs Gibbs, Ensbey and George. I see no reason for disbelieving what each of those three witnesses say about their dealings with the Applicant for the specific purposes of ensuring compliance with the terms and conditions of the Applicant's employment including aspects such as accommodation and fatigue management. Each of these three lay witnesses convincingly, and credibly, contradict the evidence of the Applicant. I see, for example, no reason to disbelieve the evidence of Mr George when he talks about seeing a dog within the premises where the Applicant was residing when he attended to pick-up the Applicant from that address. It is very difficult to accept that Mr Gibbs would cause the Applicant to misrepresent the fact of having pets in any application for a rental property.

1. In terms of the extent of the latitude offered by NBN Co-Ltd to the Applicant, I find that it was considerable. The accommodation requirements and necessity for on-going management of fatigue issues resulting from the proximity of that accommodation were matters very well known by the Applicant and quite specific to his employment. To be fair to him, I do not recall the Applicant denying any knowledge of those items but rather that he sought to, as it were, ask the employer to bend the rules to facilitate him residing in a location not strictly in accordance with where the terms and conditions of his employment required him to live. To paraphrase the Full Court, the actions taken by the Applicant's managers were actions directed specifically to the Applicant's employment and were taken in respect of his employment. The determination of those managers that the Applicant must reside in compliant accommodation involved valid and reasonable administrative action specifically directed to the Applicant and about the Applicant.[90]

(1) Whether the Applicant suffers from an 'ailment'?

1. Both Drs Storor and Kovacevic have made respective diagnoses of major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder. It can therefore be safely found that the Applicant does suffer from a mental ailment or disorder constituting an ailment for the purposes of s 4(1) of the SRC Act.

(2) Whether the ailment was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the Applicant's employment?

1. My findings on this specific question can be distilled into the following points:

• while the contemporaneous medical records contain reference to reported mental health symptoms, there is, at best, scant and unreliable reference to any suggestion that workplace issues - be it in the form of alleged impermissible workplace behaviour by his managers, or anything else of a work-related nature - were causative of those symptoms;
• there is little or nothing to corroborate the Applicant's now-made claim that such alleged impermissible workplace behaviour by the managers amounted to bullying, harassment or the imposition of unreasonable or excessive workloads. The Applicant's managers had a duty and obligation to maintain and observe the terms and conditions of the Applicant's employment. They approved at least four sites in Tweed Heads, Kingscliff and Banora Point as compliant accommodation. They were even prepared to eventually tolerate the Applicant living across the border in Queensland but no further north than Currumbin. The Applicant created his own impasse by unrealistically insisting on residing at Coombabah, some 130km from Ballina and 110km from Byron Bay;
• the Applicant's contention that his now-claimed condition is attributable to his mere perception of bullying and harassment and/or excessive workloads imposed by his managers can be displaced on two grounds. First, to the extent he may now propound such a contention, I have found that there is little or nothing of a contemporaneous nature to corroborate it; and, second, any such perception must be about an incident or state of affairs in his workplace that actually happened.[91] In the present case, the evidence does not demonstrate any such thing; and
• true it may be that the Applicant's managers variously communicated and interacted with him about the need to locate and secure compliant employment. But these communications and interactions do not, on the evidence before me, indicate a causative basis for his now-claimed condition. I am satisfied that the evidence clearly demonstrates the primarily causative and contributory factor to the Applicant's now-claimed condition are attributable to his accommodation difficulties as a result of his pets and his consequent blacklisting by local agents.

(3) Whether the exception of reasonable administrative action applies?

1. I am satisfied that the steps and measures taken by the Applicant's managers were not causative of any mental health issues, either contemporaneously with his employment or subsequently. I am satisfied the employer has taken reasonable administrative action in the circumstances of the instant case. Items such as the securing of compliant accommodation and compliance with the employers Fatigue Management Procedure were fundamental terms of the Applicant's employment with NBN Co-Ltd. The managers did, at all material times, act fairly and reasonably in seeking to maintain compliance with those elements of the Applicant's employment.

1. The conduct of those managers in (1) agreeing to at least four immediately compliant accommodation locations; (2) tolerating the Applicant living across the Queensland border in Currumbin; and (3) even accepting - albeit on a short-medium term basis - that he reside in Coombabah are elements that do clearly speak to an endorse a finding about the objective reasonableness of the administrative action taken by those managers.

1. In short order, the three relevant questions can be answered thus:

1. Yes, the Applicant suffers from a mental ailment or disorder constituting 'ailment' pursuant to s 4(1) of the SRC Act;
2. No, this ailment was not contributed to, to any significant degree, by the Applicant's employment; and
3. Yes, the reasonable administrative action exclusion applies.

1. The Respondent is not liable pursuant to s 14 of the SRC Act to pay compensation in respect of the Applicant's claimed condition of 'severe depression and anxiety.'

1. Pursuant to s 105(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act (2024) Cth, the Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

[1] Hereinafter referred to as "the decision under review".

[2] Hereinafter referred to as the ("SRC Act").

[5] Note: s 4(1) of the SRC Act notes that ""injury" has the meaning given by section 5A".

[6] Note: s 4(1) of the SRC Act notes that ""disease" has the meaning given by section 5B".

[7] See: Explanatory Memorandum, Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2006 (Cth)

[14] Exhibit 4(b), Statement of Mr Aaron Gibbs, [17].

[15] Exhibit 4(b), Statement of Mr Aaron Gibbs, Annexure B.

[16] Exhibit 4(b), Statement of Peter George, [13].

[17] Transcript: p 76, lines 44-47; p 77, lines 1-7.

[22] Exhibit 4, Applicant's documents, 4(a)(i), pp 23-25.

[24] Exhibit 4, Applicant's documents, 4(a)(i), p 25.

[25] I will presume this 'Dr Malcom Borland' is one and the same person as 'Dr Malcom' the Applicant refers to at [61] of his second statement.

[26] Exhibit 4, Applicant's documents, 4(c), p 4.

[27] Exhibit 4, Applicant's documents, 4(c), p 4.

[29] Exhibit 4, Applicant's documents, 4(c), p 5.

[31] Exhibit 4, Applicant's documents, 4(a)(i), p 25.

[32] Exhibit 4, Applicant's documents, 4(a)(i), p 25.

[33] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Aaron Gibbs, [19].

[34] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Aaron Gibbs, Annexure A.

[35] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Aaron Gibbs, Annexure B.

[36] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Aaron Gibbs, Annexure B.

[37] Denoting: Health, Safety, and Environment, which is a broader concept encompassing the management and control of workplace hazards, environmental risks, and employee well-being.

[38] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Aaron Gibbs, Annexure B.

[39] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Aaron Gibbs, Annexure B.

[40] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Aaron Gibbs, Annexure B.

[41] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Tony Ensbey, [8].

[42] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Tony Ensbey, [9].

[43] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Tony Ensbey, Annexure A.

[44] See Transcript, p 39, lines 26-27 (for the first underlined dot point quoted at [43]; p 39, lines 34-37 (for the second underlined dot point quoted at [43]); and lines 39-42 (for the third underlined dot point at [43]).

[45] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Tony Ensbey, [13] and [14].

[46] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Tony Ensbey, Annexure B.

[47] See Exhibit 4(b), statement of Tony Ensbey, Annexure B.

[69] Exhibit 4(c), Summonsed records, pp 21-22.

[70] Exhibit 4(c), Summonsed records, p 22.

[71] Exhibit 4(c), Summonsed records, p 23.

[72] Exhibit 4(c), Summonsed records, p 23.

[73] Exhibit 4(c), Summonsed records, p 23.

[74] Exhibit 4, Applicant's documents, 4(c), p 4.

[75] Exhibit 4, Applicant's documents, 4(c), p 4.

[77] Note to reader: the date of "25/07/21" in this second report is clearly a typographical error and the year should be 2022.

[79] Transcript, p 49, lines 29-45; p 50, lines 1-18.

[90] See Drinkwater v Comcare [2018] FCAFC 62, [71].

[91] See WNBR v Comcare [2021] AATA 32, [58].