Under section 51(2) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) the respondent's decisions made on 4 and 5 May 2016 are affirmed.

1. On 21 June 2014, Ms Seyma Sahin had a transport accident. She was then 25 years old. The car she was travelling in was hit from behind by another car. Ms Sahin's car's airbags went off. She suffered whiplash and neck pain. Ms Sahin found the accident frightening and upsetting. In the following weeks, there was some conflict with the other driver about payment and property damage arising from the accident. That also caused Ms Sahin upset and stress.
2. Ms Sahin returned to her work as an assessment officer on a part time basis from 22 July 2014. By 25 August 2014 she was back at work full time, although she had ongoing neck pain and headaches.
3. Commencing in about September 2014, Ms Sahin's mental health deteriorated significantly. She reported to her general practitioner that she was having trouble with co-workers - saying they acted in an out of place and ambiguous manner and she did not know why. On 5 September 2014, Ms Sahin was referred to a psychologist for assistance.
4. In mid-October 2014, Ms Sahin travelled to Turkey. She had a difficult time and appeared to be hearing voices and having paranoid thoughts about those around her, including on the plane home.
5. By mid-November 2014, Ms Sahin's mother and brother were very concerned about her. They all attended a consultation with Ms Sahin's general practitioner on 13 November 2014. Ms Sahin's mother and brother explained she was having paranoid thoughts and was not sleeping. Ms Sahin was prescribed anti-psychotic medication.
6. On 13 November 2014, Ms Sahin resigned from her job, asking that her resignation take effect from 7 November 2014.
7. On 19 December 2014, Ms Sahin's general practitioner referred her to the Monash Health Crisis Assessment and Treatment (CAT) team. Over the following months it became clear Ms Sahin was experiencing a significant mental health condition. Ms Sahin was later diagnosed with schizophrenia.
8. Ms Sahin has been unable to work since November 2014 and she continues to experience ongoing and sometimes debilitating symptoms. Having said that, Ms Sahin has commenced a patisserie course and hopes that will allow her to work again in future.
9. Ms Sahin received compensation from the Transport Accident Commission (TAC) in the form of loss of earnings benefits and medical and like expenses from 28 June 2014 to 24 August 2014 and 19 March 2015 to 1 May 2015.
10. In about November 2015, Ms Sahin applied to the TAC to accept liability for her mental health condition and for loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity benefits due to the accident.
11. On 4 and 5 May 2016 TAC made decisions which had the effect of denying liability for her mental health condition and refusing to reinstate the loss of earning or loss of earning capacity benefits. The decisions were made because TAC did not accept Ms Sahin's schizophrenia was related to her transport accident.
12. Ms Sahin has asked for this Tribunal to review TAC's decisions, seeking orders that liability be accepted and loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity benefits be paid to her.

1. The applicable law is found in the Transport Accident Act 1986 (Vic) (TA Act) which established a scheme of compensation for persons who are injured or die as a result of transport accidents.
2. Section 8 of the TA Act contains objects which include:

(a) to reduce the cost to the Victorian community of compensation for transport accidents;

(b) to provide, in the most socially and economically appropriate manner, suitable and just compensation in respect of persons injured or who die as a result of transport accidents;

1. The TAC's objectives, as described in section 11, include to manage the transport accident compensation scheme as effectively, efficiently and economically as possible and to ensure the most appropriate compensation is delivered in the most socially and economically appropriate manner and as expeditiously as possible.
2. Section 35 of the TA Act says a person who is injured as a result of a transport accident is entitled to compensation in accordance with the TA Act.
3. Section 60 specifies forms of compensation payable by the TAC to persons who are injured in respect of a transport accident.
4. Section 44 of the TA Act deals with loss of earnings and sub-section (1) says:

The Commission is liable to pay to an earner who is injured as a result of a transport accident and suffers a total loss of earnings as a result of, or materially contributed to by, the injury a weekly payment in respect of loss of earnings during the period of entitlement

1. Section 49 deals with loss of earning capacity and sub-section (1) says:

The Commission is liable to pay to an earner who, as a result of a transport accident -

a weekly payment in respect of that loss after the first 18 months after the accident or after the earner ceases to be entitled to payments under section 44 or 45, whichever last occurs, while that loss continues.

1. The relevant maximum period for income benefits to which Ms Sahin could be entitled under section 49 was three years which expired on 21 June 2017.
2. The term 'injury' is defined in section 3(1) of the TA Act to mean:

physical or mental injury and includes nervous shock suffered by a person who was directly involved in the transport accident or who witnessed the transport accident or the immediate aftermath of the transport accident.

1. VCAT's role when undertaking a review under section 77 of the TA Act and section 51 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) is to make the correct and preferable decision on the application exercising all of TAC's functions.[1] VCAT has the power to affirm or vary the decision or to set aside the decision and either substitute a fresh decision or remit the matter for re-consideration.
2. It was agreed that neither party carries the burden of proof.
3. The parties also agreed that, what is required of the Tribunal, placing itself in the shoes of the decision maker, is a state of satisfaction that the decision at which it arrives is the correct decision based on all of the material before it.[2]
4. That state of satisfaction may be reached where the evidence before the Tribunal is such as to justify an inference of a probable connection between the transport accident and the condition. Any inference must be based on facts established by admissible evidence. The process of reasoning must constitute a valid inference as distinct from speculation or guesswork. The totality of the evidence may be considered together in order to ascertain the weight of the evidence as a whole.[3]
5. In order for TAC to be liable, it is only necessary for it to be proved that the transport accident was a cause of the relevant injury.[4]

1. On 4 May 2016, the TAC wrote to Ms Sahin saying relevantly:

The TAC has been notified by Dr Gary Silver that you require treatment and medications for your post transport accident psychiatric condition.

The TAC does not accept that the following injuries/conditions are related to your transport accident. This means that the TAC is unable to pay for any treatment or benefits related to these injuries/conditions:

• Psychiatric condition which developed post transport accident (schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis)

As the TAC is unable to accept your psychiatric condition as related to your transport accident therefor the TAC is unable to pay for any treatment or medications that you require for this condition.

1. The 4 May 2016 letter went on to refer in some detail to the opinions given by two independent psychiatrists, Associate Professor Peter Doherty (report dated 22 April 2016) and Dr Nathan Serry (reports dated 17 November 2015 and 11 February 2016), as to whether the transport accident was a cause of Ms Sahin's 'schizophrenia' and her 'current psychiatric diagnosis'.
2. The letter also referred to an opinion provided by independent neuropsychologist, Dr Andrew Gibbs, to the effect that there was no indication Ms Sahin had ongoing effects of a closed head injury and that there was a low incidence of association between closed head injuries and psychosis. The letter then referred to a report from an independent neurologist, Associate Professor Richard Stark summarising his view that Ms Sahin did not suffer a significant head injury and that he did not believe she sustained a brain injury as a result of the accident.
3. Finally, reference was made to a number of certificates of capacity provided by Ms Sahin's longstanding general practitioner, Dr Gary Silver. The letter noted the certificates referred to Ms Sahin's psychiatric condition and required treatment.
4. On 5 May 2016, the TAC again wrote to Ms Sahin. The letter said relevantly:

I am writing to you about your entitlement to loss of earning and loss of earning capacity benefits.

Thank you for attending the independent medical examination with Assoc Prof Doherty on 22 April 2016.

The TAC is unable to reinstate your loss of earning or loss of earning capacity benefits because you are currently unable to work due to a mental health condition which is not related to your transport accident.

The TAC has reviewed Dr Silver's certificates of capacity dated 13 May 2015 and notes that after resigning your employment from 7 November 2014 and have been unable to work due to your mental health condition and associated medications. TAC has determined that these injuries and medications are not related to your transport accident.

The TAC also notes that you were paid loss of earnings benefits from 19 March 2015 till 1 May 2015 totalling $4,629.72. The TAC will not seek recoveries (sic) for the loss of earnings paid in error.

1. At the commencement of the hearing, the parties described the case as raising a question of causation, namely was Ms Sahin's transport accident a cause of her mental health condition? There was no dispute between the parties that Ms Sahin had been diagnosed with a schizophrenic condition.[5]
2. In its written submissions dated 13 August 2018, Mr P Bourke, counsel for TAC, stated at paragraph10 that his client submitted:

. . . the principal issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the applicant's transport accident was 'a cause' of the applicant's schizophrenia. The TAC conceded at the hearing that if the Tribunal made such a finding, then reinstatement of the applicant's income benefits must follow.

1. In his written submissions dated 13 August 2018, Ms Sahin's counsel, Mr Y C Chen, made it plain his contention was that the TAC's decision should be taken to involve the denial of liability for psychiatric injury generally, 'whether that is characterised as schizophrenia, schizophreniform psychosis, post traumatic stress, secondary depression, and/or traumatisation.'[6]
2. Mr Chen went on to contend that, had the TAC wished to only deny liability for schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis but not deny liability for the other psychiatric diagnoses that had been put to it, it would have been obliged to give consideration to paying benefits in respect of those alternate diagnoses. He noted the TAC had not done so and that the 5 May 2016 decision made it clear the TAC was seeking to deny entitlements in relation to a psychiatric injury generally. He placed reliance on the language used in the decision letter which referred to 'a mental health condition'.
3. Mr Chen contended that the broad phrasing of the 5 May 2016 letter 'is a clear sign that the respondent's denial of benefits is on the basis that the applicant's "mental health condition", however defined is unrelated to the transport accident'. He further contended the decision was not predicated on causation in respect of schizophrenia or any specific diagnosis - the claim was said to have been rejected on the basis there was no causal connection between the accident and any mental health condition.
4. Mr Chen placed particular reliance on Dr Silver's certificate of capacity dated 13 May 2015 which diagnosed Ms Sahin as having post traumatic stress and psychosis but not schizophrenia. Reliance was also placed on Dr Serry's opinion that Ms Sahin's transport accident perhaps contributed to the onset of psychotic symptoms and was the most likely cause of her depressive symptoms and traumatisation features.[7] Mr Chen contended I should accept the evidence given by Dr Silver and Dr Serry and find that the transport accident was a cause of the identified range of mental health conditions.
5. Mr Chen referred to transcript in support of the proposition that Ms Sahin's case at the hearing was not confined to the diagnosis of schizophrenia but rather encompassed a different diagnosis of the psychiatric/mental injury. He contended that, consistent with the TA Act being beneficial legislation, the two decisions ought not to be read narrowly and ought to be read in the broader sense described.
6. In its reply written submissions dated 20 August 2018, TAC contended that the first and primary decision plainly related to the applicant's principal condition being 'schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis', and that TAC was unable to pay for any treatment or benefits related to that psychiatric condition.
7. TAC contended that the two decisions must be read in the context of Dr Silver's 11 November 2015 notification. The notification referred to distress, hallucinations, the intervention of a CAT team, psychosis and ongoing treatment by a psychiatrist. It also relied on Dr Serry's 17 November 2015 report which referred to Ms Sahin as having 'symptoms and features of a major psychiatric condition, most consistent with a schizophreniform psychosis' and the ultimate diagnosis eventually being of schizophrenia. While noting Dr Serry's references to ongoing depression and traumatisation features, TAC contended the serious psychiatric condition Dr Serry was focussed on was schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis. That diagnosis was said to have been consistent with Assoc Prof Doherty's assessment.
8. Accordingly, TAC contended the singular 'mental health condition' referred to in the 5 May 2016 decision letter was the schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis referred to in the 4 May 2016 decision letter.
9. TAC submitted the evidence supported findings that the applicant's history of intense paranoid anxiety and paranoid auditory hallucinations commenced in at least September or October 2014 and led to Ms Sahin ceasing work in November 2014 and that she developed schizophrenia which has persisted, and which continued to prevent her return to work. It submitted the transport accident was not a cause of Ms Sahin's symptoms as described above or the schizophrenia.[8]
10. Mr Bourke referred me to the Tribunal's decision in Crljenec v TAC,[9] where the Tribunal found that, if there was ambiguity in the decision under review, a narrow reading was to be taken. He contended that a narrow reading was to be preferred because a broad reading might have a detrimental effect on persons affected, particularly those who fail to seek review in the required statutory period.

1. As stated earlier, on a de novo review and exercising all of the powers of the decision maker, the Tribunal's powers are broad and include being able to take into account evidence not available to the decision maker.
2. However, the Tribunal's task remains that specified in the TA and VCAT Acts - to review the reviewable decision. His Honour Justice T Forrest recently discussed these powers and relevant cases in Dawson v Greyhound Racing Victoria.[10] His Honour confirmed the Tribunal's role is to address the same question as the primary decision maker and that it is not permissible to pose a different question to that answered by the relevant decision maker.
3. Accordingly, it is necessary for me to identify with precision the subject matter of the decisions under review.

1. There is no apparent ambiguity in the wording of TAC's 4 May 2016 decision. TAC stated that it refused to accept liability for Ms Sahin's 'Psychiatric condition which developed post transport accident (schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis)'.
2. As the 4 May 2016 decision informs the second decision, I have discussed below in some detail the relevant reports which form the background to the decision.
3. Dr Silver notified TAC that Ms Sahin required treatment and medications for her post-transport accident related psychiatric condition on 11 November 2015.[11] In that report, Dr Silver referred to Ms Sahin suffering from whiplash and developing 'increasing distress and agitation followed by hallucinations' that led to her treatment by the CAT team. He referred to her being commenced on Zeldox, an anti-psychotic medication.[12] The report referred to Ms Sahin having psychosis, suffering from poor concentration, poor sleep and persistent hallucinations. No other psychiatric conditions were expressly identified and no other medications were mentioned.
4. The summaries of Assoc Prof Doherty and Dr Serry's opinions set out in TAC's 4 May 2016 decision, focussed only on the question of whether the transport accident caused or contributed to Ms Sahin's psychiatric condition, identified as schizophrenia.
5. In his 22 April 2016 report, Assoc Prof Doherty expressed the view there was no separate psychiatric diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He also considered whether Ms Sahin might suffer from an adjustment disorder with depressed or anxious mood. He said:

In my opinion no separate diagnosis of that can be now defined. The overwhelming psychopathology is that of the symptoms and behaviours associated with active and florid schizophrenia.

1. As set out in more detail later in these reasons, Assoc Prof Doherty's report was otherwise focussed on whether there was a relationship between the transport accident and the diagnosis of schizophrenia.
2. The decision letter recorded that Assoc Prof Doherty said Ms Sahin's 'psychiatric condition' had not been caused by or significantly contributed to by the transport accident.
3. The decision letter said Dr Serry's reports stated that, in the absence of other factors, he considered the transport accident had contributed to the development of her 'current psychiatric diagnosis'.
4. Dr Serry's 17 November 2015 report included the following:

The psychiatric illness arising from the subject accident is most consistent with a diagnosis of schizophreniform psychosis, a condition which may ultimately be deemed to be schizophrenia. There is a not insignificant element of secondary depression and further still, your client has some mild features of traumatisation regarding the direct accident circumstances.

Whilst she has remained somewhat physically symptomatic, she has developed a much more serious psychiatric reaction. Your client described the development of symptoms and features of a major psychiatric condition, most consistent with a schizophreniform psychosis. Her ultimate diagnosis may eventually be that of schizophrenia.

She also has a degree of ongoing depression and anxiety and some mild traumatisation features regarding the accident itself.

In the absence of other risk factors, one would have to consider the possibility that the injuries sustained in the accident and the trauma of the accident itself have contributed to the development of the serious psychiatric condition

1. Having regard to the above content, I find that, when Dr Serry referred to a 'major' or 'serious' psychiatric condition in his 17 November 2015 report, he was referring to schizophreniform psychosis, being a condition which may ultimately be deemed to be schizophrenia.
2. In his 11 February 2016 report, Dr Serry said this:

You have asked me to outline how and what evidence I have to support the claimant's schizophreniform psychosis diagnosis and the relationship to the transport accident in the absence of any head strike.

I did not feel at the time of my assessment that the development of the schizophreniform psychosis related to a significant head strike or particularly significant head injury.

Rather, in the absence of any other obvious stressors, it was my opinion that the traumatic experience of the accident itself had resulted in the development of what appears to have been a very substantial psychiatric reaction.

One could presume that there was an element of pre-existing but entirely asymptomatic pre-morbid vulnerability.

This then leads on to your further question which is as to whether or not the diagnosed psychiatric condition would have developed regardless of the transport accident given 'that her biological father is known to have extensive mental health history (Southern Health records)'.[13]

This is a particularly relevant piece of information and was not available to me at the time of my assessment of the claimant.

The family history which you refer to is likely to have rendered the claimant somewhat vulnerable to the development of a psychiatric condition but does not in any way predict the likely development of the same.

It remains my opinion that the psychological experience of the accident itself was the key precipitant to the development of the claimant's psychiatric condition, a condition she was likely to have been somewhat vulnerable to the development of given the apparent family history.

1. The only mention of other psychiatric conditions in Dr Serry's 11 February 2016 report was to refer to his earlier view that he 'felt' there was secondary depression as well as mild features of traumatization regarding the accident circumstances.
2. When read in context, I am satisfied that, in his 11 February 2016 report, Dr Serry was expressing an opinion about whether the transport accident was a cause of or related to the psychiatric condition he had diagnosed, namely schizophreniform psychosis.
3. Mr Chen relied on the fact TAC's 4 May 2016 letter referred to Dr Silver's certificates of capacity.
4. I noted:
   • Dr Silver issued a certificate of capacity on 23 July 2014 which covered the period 23 July 2014 to 23 August 2014. It described the relevant injury as 'whiplash injury' and referred to Ms Sahin returning to work four days a week and requiring a portable desk at her workstation;[14]
   • On 25 August 2014, Dr Silver issued a further certificate of capacity for the period 24 August 2014 to 24 September 2014. It again described the relevant injury as 'whiplash injury' and referred to Ms Sahin returning to work full hours, requiring a portable desk at her workstation and taking care with lifting and neck movements. It referred to ongoing physiotherapy;[15]
   • On 13 May 2015, Dr Silver issued a certificate of capacity which stated Ms Sahin had no capacity for employment for the period 7 November 2014 to 19 April 2015. The certificate stated the clinical diagnosis was 'post traumatic stress and psychosis, whip lash injury'. The certificate stated Ms Sahin was unable to concentrate such that she could not study or work currently and that she was 'seeing a psychiatrist and on medication for this'; and[16]
   • Another certificate of capacity produced also carried the date 13 May 2015 and the same diagnosis, references to an inability to work and treatment from a psychiatrist. That certificate stated Ms Sahin was unable to work for the period 11 June 2015 to 11 September 2015.
5. While it is apparent TAC considered those certificates, the decision makes no reference to the other possible diagnosis of 'post traumatic stress'. When read with Dr Silver's 11 November 2015 notification, it is apparent that the claim before TAC arose from Ms Sahin's psychotic symptoms. It is equally apparent that was the injury the decision maker considered.
6. Accordingly, I find the 4 May 2016 decision concerned only the identified 'schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis' and did not concern any other psychiatric conditions.

1. As is apparent from the content of the 5 May 2016 decision set out above, it refers in general terms to the injury in issue. There is an argument that its use of the term 'mental health condition' is ambiguous in the light of the various conditions mentioned in Dr Silver's certificates of capacity and Dr Serry's reports.
2. Clearly it would have been preferable for it to have made express reference to the nature of the mental health condition considered. It appeared to me to be a standard form letter with additions or amendments and it seems most likely that explains in part why the 5 May 2016 decision letter included references to 'these injuries and medications'.
3. Having said that, the context of the decision makes it plain the decision was concerned with whether the relevant mental health condition was the cause of Ms Sahin being unable to work.
4. The reasoning in the 5 May 2016 decision was to the effect that TAC could not reinstate loss of earnings or loss of earning capacity benefits because the mental health condition which rendered Ms Sahin unable to work was not related to the transport accident.
5. Dr Silver's two certificates of capacity dated 13 May 2015 showed Ms Sahin had been unable to work since 7 November 2014 due to her 'mental health condition and associated medications'. That wording picks up on the certificates of capacity described above which say Ms Sahin was seeing a psychiatrist and taking medications for 'this', apparently being, the 'post traumatic stress and psychosis'.
6. The decision also refers to Assoc Prof Doherty's report dated 22 April 2016 which, as set out above, concluded that Ms Sahin's diagnosis was schizophrenia and there was no diagnosis of PTSD or of an adjustment disorder with depressed or anxious mood. Importantly that report concluded that the diagnosed condition of schizophrenia was not 'caused, significantly contributed to or precipitated by the transport accident'.
7. Considering TAC's decision issued the day before which had regard to the identified reports as well as the certificates of capacity, the context supports a finding that the 5 May 2016 decision concerned whether there was an entitlement to section 44 or 49 entitlements because the transport accident was a cause of Ms Sahin's 'injury', being the psychiatric condition 'schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis'.
8. I am satisfied that is the preferred reading of the decision given there was nothing in any of Dr Silver's notification, Assoc Prof Doherty or Dr Serry's reports which indicated Ms Sahin was unable to work due to 'post traumatic stress' or to 'a not insignificant element of secondary depression and . . . some mild features of traumatisation' or to 'a degree of ongoing depression and anxiety and some mild traumatisation features regarding the accident itself'.
9. In fact, the material before TAC at the time indicated to the contrary.
10. In his 11 November 2015 notification, Dr Silver stated that Ms Sahin was then unable to return to full time work 'largely due to her poor concentration, poor sleep and persistent hallucinations.' As summarised earlier, his notification referred to psychosis and its related symptomatology, the involvement of the CAT team and her treatment with Zeldox. In response to a query about Ms Sahin's capacity to undertake her usual role and in what timeframe, Dr Silver said she was unable to do so. On the question of timing, Dr Silver said, 'This is likely to be a longterm issue and possibly can be improved by regular input from a Psychiatrist, although her prognosis at this point is guarded.'
11. Dr Serry's 17 November 2015 report Ms Sahin stated she returned to work but had to stop. She was 'struggling with pain, concentration difficulties and then the development of distressing auditory hallucinations in September and October of 2014. As such she ceased work. She has not worked since.'
12. In his report dated 22 April 2016, Assoc Prof Doherty stated Ms Sahin told him she had not been working since November 2014 and that she had finished because 'she was ill, hearing a "voice" and had neck pain' and that she had not worked since. He added later in his report that Ms Sahin's prognosis was poor and that she was likely to have 'ongoing and enduring psychosocial impairments, persistent positive frank psychotic symptoms and consequential impairment in [her] capacity for work'. Assoc Prof Doherty stated that, due to the active presence of psychosis, Ms Sahin then had no capacity for work.
13. Having regard to the above evidence, I find the mental health condition the subject of the 5 May 2016 letter was Ms Sahin's diagnosed psychiatric condition being 'schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis'.

1. Given these findings, the issue before me is whether Ms Sahin's transport accident was a cause of her schizophrenia such that TAC was liable to her for payments and benefits, including loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity benefits. That requires an assessment of the evidence about how the injury developed, why Ms Sahin ceased work and whether the required causal link between the transport accident and Ms Sahin's schizophrenia has been proved.

1. At the hearing, I heard evidence from Ms Sahin.
2. I also heard evidence from and read reports prepared by Dr Silver and psychiatrists, Dr Serry and Assoc Prof Doherty.
3. The parties produced large numbers of documents including Dr Silver's consultation notes, hospital records and numerous medical reports and letters from various practitioners. The latter included letters authored by physiotherapists and consultant psychiatrists. I have had primary regard to those documents the parties drew my attention to at the hearing, those referred to in the decision letters and those referred to in the parties' submissions.
4. The reports before me included those prepared by neuropsychologist Dr Gibbs and neurologist, Assoc Prof Stark.[17]
5. Dr Serry and Assoc Prof Doherty gave evidence about their qualifications and experience. It was apparent to me they are both highly regarded and are experts in psychiatry. They both gave careful evidence. They were both fully informed about the evidence given by previous witnesses at the hearing and they took that into account when answering questions. I have placed equal weight on their expertise and experience.
6. Ms Sahin was an open witness who, to my observation, answered questions honestly. It was apparent she is highly intelligent and was able to understand the issues before me. She gave her evidence in this manner despite hearing voices at times. It seemed to me Ms Sahin has shown resilience and strength in the face of significant health challenges.
7. Having said that, I have treated Ms Sahin's evidence as to her recollection about the detail of timing of events and symptoms with some degree of caution. I do so given Dr Serry's evidence, in response to a question from me, about the deleterious impact Ms Sahin's illness may have had on her memory at specific points and time and also over time. In summary, Dr Serry's evidence was that:
   • The psychotic process invariably interferes with sustained concentration, short-term memory in particular, and can tend to interfere with one's interpretation of long passed memories;
   • Anti-psychotic medication has side effects which potentially impact on cognition. Those are often sedating medications, and so people experience cognitive fatigue;
   • A person with a psychotic condition, treated or otherwise would find sitting in a witness stand and being 'grilled' a very, very difficult experience; and
   • He agreed with the proposition that, at different points in time, different aspects of the factors he mentioned might have been operating on her capacity to report on her past history with her current symptoms.[18]
8. I have been mindful of that evidence when assessing both Ms Sahin's evidence before me and the histories she gave to medical practitioners at relevant points in time.

Ms Sahin's pre-transport accident mental health

1. I heard evidence about Ms Sahin's mental state prior to the transport accident, including about stress she suffered during her year 12 studies and workplaces problems prior to the date of the accident, 21 June 2014. I was informed Ms Sahin's step father passed away in October 2014 and that, as she was close to him, Ms Sahin was understandably distressed by his death.
2. There was a good deal of evidence about Ms Sahin's history of difficulties at work before the accident, including an exploration of whether they indicated earlier paranoia or perhaps signs of psychosis. Dr Silver gave evidence about Ms Sahin's work history and reports she made about concerns about other staff and related matters. What was clear was that he considered Ms Sahin's post accident behaviour associated with her psychosis to be materially different to the earlier problems she discussed with him.[19]
3. It has not been necessary to discuss that evidence in any detail as the parties ultimately agreed through their submissions that Ms Sahin did not have a diagnosable mental health condition before 21 June 2014.[20]
4. It is convenient to record here that there were various reports and documents before me which contained references to Ms Sahin's father having an 'extensive mental health history'. There was no evidence about what that history might have been and, importantly, no evidence that it included schizophrenia and so might have explained Ms Sahin's presumed pre-disposition to the illness. On that basis, I have given no weight to comments about the father's medical history.

The timing of the emergence of Ms Sahin's injury

1. There was a dispute about when Ms Sahin's symptoms emerged and how that impacted on the question of causation.
2. The evidence indicated that the earliest Ms Sahin first started hearing voices was in around September 2014 and that her paranoia related symptoms emerged in about November 2014 after she returned from a trip to Turkey in October 2014.
3. Dr Silver gave evidence that within two to three months of the transport accident, Ms Sahin developed a change in how she functioned at work, how she was sleeping and she started hearing voices. In his opinion those symptoms were new.[21] Dr Silver stated in a report dated 25 July 2018 that Ms Sahin told him in December 2014 that she had started hearing voices 'over the previous few months'.[22] The various medical practitioners characterised those symptoms as marking when Ms Sahin's symptoms were recognisable as psychosis.[23]
4. Ms Sahin's submissions also relied on later medical records to contend the psychosis illness commenced as early as around two months after the transport accident, that is August 2014. In particular, the submissions referred to an entry made in a discharge summary when Ms Sahin was admitted to Monash Health's Mental Health Service for the period 26 February 2015 to 7 March 2015. The report said, 'family reports 6-8 months of deterioration in Seyma's mental state with increasing disorganisation and paranoia'.[24] Mr Chen, Ms Sahin's counsel, contended that evidence placed the commencement of the illness in around August or September 2014, closer in time to the transport accident.
5. Other medical reports also said or suggested Ms Sahin become unwell within weeks or months after the transport accident.[25]
6. Ms Sahin's sister made a statement which said Ms Sahin's demeanour changes within 'a few weeks to a month of the accident' and that she felt Ms Sahin's 'tone was less positive and noticeably more stressed and worried about various things'. As an example, she said a few weeks after the accident, Ms Sahin was driving her and insisted a car behind was following them despite the fact no car was behind them.[26]
7. On the question of the timing of the emergence of psychotic symptoms, I prefer the more contemporaneous records made by medical practitioners who examined Ms Sahin closer in time to the transport accident. Those include the consultation notes made by Dr Silver which contain no reference to any psychosis related symptoms until December 2014 and which place their commencement at earliest in September 2014, shortly before Ms Sahin set off for Turkey.
8. While I accept Ms Sahin's sister may have recalled behaviour she found different and had concerns about the beliefs Ms Sahin expressed while driving, it seems to me unlikely her estimate that they occurred earlier than September 2014 is correct. I make that comment also noting Ms Sahin returned to work from late July 2014 and there was no record she had reported concerns about her mental state to Dr Silver until 4 September 2014.
9. Accordingly, I find the earliest symptoms of Ms Sahin's psychosis illness occurred in around September to October of 2014.

1. There was no dispute that Ms Sahin has now been diagnosed with a psychiatric condition, namely schizophrenia. While in November 2015, Dr Serry referred to a diagnosis of 'schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis' in his earlier opinion, by the time of his later reports and his evidence before the Tribunal, he characterised the condition as schizophrenia.[27]
2. Assoc Prof Doherty gave evidence that, if a person has symptoms of psychosis typical with schizophrenia (such as delusions and hallucinations and disorder of speech), for less than six months, a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder is made. Once those symptoms persist for more than six months, the diagnosis is of schizophrenia.[28] Dr Serry agreed with that view in his report dated 8 July 2016. I accept that evidence.
3. Taking that evidence together with my earlier findings, for the purposes of my review of TAC's 4 and 5 May 2016 decisions, Ms Sahin's mental health condition was schizophrenia.

1. Entitlements under sections 44 and 49 of the TA Act turn on whether the transport accident caused or materially contributed to the injury which led to the claimant suffering a total loss of earnings and/or suffering a total loss of earning capacity.
2. As discussed above, the information available to TAC in May 2016 indicated Ms Sahin was unable to work due to her diagnosis of schizophrenia.
3. There was no dispute before me that Ms Sahin ceased work in November 2014, after her symptoms of psychosis became apparent to her family and Dr Silver.
4. Ms Sahin gave evidence that at the time of the accident she was crying, felt fear and was upset. She thought she was going to die because the air bags went off and frightened her. She stated that she did not feel pain immediately after the accident because of the shock she went through. After a couple of hours, she felt heat and pain in her neck and her cousin took her to the hospital.[29] Ms Sahin gave evidence that she was crying when she attended Dandenong Hospital.[30]
5. Ms Sahin also gave evidence she spoke to Dr Silver about the stress she felt after the accident but mostly spoke to her psychologist about that.[31] I note there was no evidence, letter or report from that psychologist before me.
6. Ms Sahin was asked whether she had done any paid work since the accident. She said she had attempted to but had to stop because of the voices she was hearing.[32]
7. Ms Sahin stated that she was unable to work because of both her physical and psychological state. She was asked about changes in mood after the transport accident. Ms Sahin said she did not notice a change in her mood but her family did and they brought it to her attention. Ms Sahin placed the change in her mood as starting a couple of months after the accident. She stated that she was stressed at work and could not cope with the pressure of working while she had the stress of the car accident and her neck pain.[33]
8. I have already set out what Dr Silver said about Ms Sahin's cessation of work and future work capacity in his 11 November 2015 notification. In summary, his opinion was that Ms Sahin was then unable to return to full time work 'largely due to her poor concentration, poor sleep and persistent hallucinations.' He also stated that Ms Sahin would not be able to resume her usual role as she had a 'longterm issue'.
9. I have recorded Dr Serry's 17 November 2015 report comments about Ms Sahin struggling at work, having concentration difficulties and auditory hallucinations. Assoc Prof Doherty found she had no work capacity as at April 2016 report due to her 'persistent positive frank psychotic symptoms'.
10. I find Ms Sahin suffered a total loss of earnings and of earning capacity in November 2014 due to the symptoms associated with her diagnosis of 'schizophrenia/schizophreniform psychosis'.
11. The next question is whether the transport accident was a cause of that injury.

Transport accident as a cause of Ms Sahin's schizophrenia?

1. Ultimately the pertinent difference of opinion was confined to one question - could the trauma of the transport accident have been a cause of the onset of Ms Sahin's schizophrenia?
2. Although psychiatric reports before me seemed to assume a link between the transport accident and the symptoms of Ms Sahin's schizophrenia,[34] the authors were not called to give evidence and so there was no opportunity to have that link further explained. I have given no particular weight to those opinions.
3. Dr Silver gave evidence about Ms Sahin's psychological and physical problems as being all mixed up together. He referred to her suffering pain for over a year which led to her seeing a physiotherapist some distance away. He accepted his records did not refer to Ms Sahin complaining about psychological upset or distress relating to the transport accident but was of the view that, it would not be unreasonable to think Ms Sahin's multiple presentations with neck pain could have shown she was in some degree of distress. He gave evidence that it was not unreasonable for the physical complaints to manifest themselves in greater stress and to cause Ms Sahin to become psychotic.[35]
4. It seemed to me that, when he gave evidence about the connection between Ms Sahin's schizophrenia, Dr Silver was in a sense working backwards from the diagnosis, to the transport accident and her previous, sometimes paranoid, presentations. As noted above, Dr Silver saw Ms Sahin's symptoms and reactions to the transport accident as all interrelated and mixed in together. I asked if he was surprised when Ms Sahin developed schizophrenia. He said:

She was always a bit paranoid. And I think - I don't think, for the years that I knew her prior, and she was acting in this way, I wouldn't have predicted that she was going to have schizophrenia. But when she got schizophrenia, you kind of look back a bit, "Well, maybe I should have thought that." And she certainly was someone who was at risk of further psychiatric problems. Her behaviour was certainly right out there, right on the .1 percentile sort of stuff.[36]

1. I accept Dr Silver treated Ms Sahin for a long time before the relevant events and knew her well. I also accept that he saw her over the period of time when her symptoms were emerging and so was able to make first hand observations of her illness. However, Dr Silver did not diagnose schizophrenia and did not give evidence of greater expertise in the field than Dr Serry and Assoc Prof Doherty.
2. For these reasons, I have placed greatest weight on the evidence of Dr Serry and Assoc Prof Doherty.
3. As I understood it, Dr Serry and Assoc Prof Doherty agreed that:
   • Schizophrenia is a disorder of the brain which is considered to be a neuro-developmental disorder;[37]
   • Leaving aside an episode of psychosis induced by medication or illicit drug use, a person who develops schizophrenia would ordinarily have a genetic pre-disposition to the condition;[38] and
   • While an event which occurred at around the same time as the emergence of symptoms may feature in hallucinations or delusions, it will not always do so.[39]

1. As set out earlier in these reasons, in his 17 November 2015, Dr Serry gave his opinion that '[i]n the absence of other risk factors, one would have to consider the possibility that the injuries sustained in the accident and the trauma of the accident itself have contributed to the development of the serious psychiatric condition.'
2. In his 11 February 2016 report, Dr Serry said he remained of the opinion that the psychological experience of the accident itself was the key precipitant to the development of Ms Sahin's psychiatric condition, a condition she was likely to have been somewhat vulnerable to the development of given the apparent family history.
3. On 8 July 2016, Dr Serry wrote a further report which, in part, commented on that written by Assoc Prof Doherty on 22 April 2016. Dr Serry said the following:

To categorically state that the accident is unrelated to the development of your client's psychiatric condition is in my opinion unreasonable.

In response to your direct questions, I would state that your client's diagnoses are those of a psychotic condition, most likely schizophrenia with a significant degree of secondary depression and some mild traumatisation features regarding the direct accident circumstances.

There is in my opinion a relationship between the diagnosed psychiatric condition and the transport accident. I would suggest that the transport accident is not the only cause of your client's psychiatric condition but a not insignificant contributing factor to the development of her psychiatric condition.

Your client's psychiatric condition and her related experiences in my opinion have been caused by the transport accident, the accident and its impact acting on an individual who at the time of the accident was asymptomatic but vulnerable by virtue of a likely biological predisposition to the development of schizophrenia.

1. In his final report dated 27 March 2017, Dr Serry stated he had seen a number of patients who in the aftermath of trauma develop a psychotic condition. He went on to state that he saw a similar connection in Ms Sahin's case. After referring to research on the connections between psycho-social stress and symptoms of schizophrenia, particularly in terms of the interaction of stressors and underlying neural vulnerability as a result of a genetic predisposition, Dr Serry concluded saying:

In essence I am of the opinion that the transport accident was not the sole cause of the development of your client's psychotic condition, but a contributing factor nevertheless.

1. As indicated above, in his 22 April 2016 report, Assoc Prof Doherty was of the view that the transport accident was not the cause of Ms Sahin's schizophrenia. He said this:

In my opinion, the psychiatric condition of schizophrenia is unrelated to the transport accident. In my opinion, it was not caused, significantly contributed to or precipitated by the transport accident.

In my opinion, it is not reasonable to suggest that the mild traumatic effects of the transport accident or the persistent neck pain should, at least three months later cause the development of the condition known as schizophrenia. As noted, there is no head injury or serious physical injury due to the transport accident.

Schizophrenia is a disorder of the brain, considered a neuro-developmental disorder and it is not a psychological reaction to trauma.

1. He later commented that, in his opinion, the condition of schizophrenia would have arisen whether or not the transport accident took place.
2. Commenting on Dr Serry's earlier reports, Assoc Prof Doherty said:

In my opinion, there is next to nothing in the nature and circumstances of the transport accident which could have reasonably give (sic) rise to the precipitation of schizophrenia. The severity of the trauma was slight, there was no brain injury and psychological reaction to the injury was not present.

1. In his subsequent report dated 2 October 2017, Assoc Prof Doherty rejected the proposition that there was a temporal relationship between the transport accident and the development of schizophrenia. He concluded the report saying that:

It appears to me that the claimant had a pre-existing vulnerability, some early signs of anxiety and perceived that she was being treated differently in the workplace and there was the onset of symptoms in September through to November 2014. A transport accident happened along the way of the development of schizophrenia.

1. In his 2 October 2017 report, Assoc Professor Doherty noted that the transport accident had not featured in Ms Sahin's delusions and he would have expected it to, had there been a causal link.

1. In his oral evidence, Assoc Prof Doherty repeated his view that the transport accident did not cause, significantly contribute to or precipitate the schizophrenia.[40]
2. Assoc Professor Doherty gave further evidence about the fact that the transport accident did not feature in Ms Sahin's delusions, although he did concede his first report noted she had expressed fear about driving and there were references to voices referring to driving.[41] I asked Assoc Prof Doherty to clarify whether he was saying there was no causal connection between the transport accident and the schizophrenia because the accident did not feature in Ms Sahin's delusions. He agreed with the proposition that, if schizophrenia is not a psychological response to trauma, then whether Ms Sahin made references to the car accident or not would not help me determine if there was a causal connection.[42]
3. Dr Serry was asked whether the content of the psychosis, (that is what the voices say), necessarily involves a link with a precipitating factor of the psychosis. His evidence was that it did not for schizophrenia, but it may be in a non-schizophrenic psychotic condition, giving as an example major depression with psychotic features.[43]
4. Given that evidence, I have set to one side the question of whether the content of Ms Sahin's delusions may support a finding on causation.
5. There was evidence before me as to the timing of the emergence of Ms Sahin's symptoms and how that corresponds with the usual presentation of schizophrenia. As noted earlier, in Assoc Prof Doherty's view, there was no temporal relationship and the transport accident simply happened along the way to the illness.
6. Dr Serry was asked about the time delay between the transport accident and the presentation of symptoms related to psychosis. His view was that the delay was not surprising as it is not unusual for people to develop significant levels of psychological distress progressively over time after a traumatic incident such as a transport accident. He explained people often focus on the physical aspects of a transport accident and that 'psychological distress becomes more apparent a little bit down the track'.[44]
7. Dr Serry gave evidence that, while it is unusual for there to be the development of psychotic symptoms as a direct cause of a motor vehicle accident, 'in a vulnerable individual, the psychotic symptoms, along with some depression, chronic pain, traumatisation symptoms, may come on progressively'.[45]
8. In his oral evidence, Assoc Prof Doherty again discussed the nature and development of schizophrenia. His evidence was that:
   • Schizophrenia is not precipitated by pain, or precipitated by psychological events;
   • It is not a psychological condition. It is not due to, caused by, or precipitated by a psychological event;
   • The pain Ms Sahin had could not cause the change in her neurochemistry that's caused her to hear voices and mistake things that were going on around her; and
   • The nature of schizophrenia is that it is not a psychological condition, it's a biological condition. It is due to changes in cell metabolism in one's brain, not due to shock, trauma, fear or being frightened.[46]
9. As to a psychological element, Assoc Prof Doherty said this:

You won't come across examples where the development of schizophrenia is precipitated by simple trauma and so on. Psychological treatment in schizophrenia does not work. It's not a psychological problem, sort of thing. If it was precipitated by psychological events you'd expect the treatment psychologically can maybe able to reverse that. It's not. There is a time and her age is typical, at the age of 24, when schizophrenia will develop and so on. Surely there are life events going on at the same time, typical of people who are 24; break-up in relationships, you know, university studies, separation from family, you know, getting out into the world. A number of things are happening at the time, but the linkage between those and the onset of schizophrenia has never been sort of clearly made at all, and so on. [47] (my emphasis)

1. Assoc Prof Doherty was asked about Dr Serry's opinion that a person may have an underlying vulnerability that then interacts with other stress factors, and that those can be events that tip a vulnerable person over into a psychotic episode. The response was as follows:

. . . it's perfectly reasonable for him to say that. But it's not - he's not talking about schizophrenia. He's talking about depression or anxiety. He's talking about an adjustment disorder, and so on.

Surely, the vulnerable person who has a thing happen to them that causes loss, the breakup in a relationship, and so on, may well develop a psychiatric condition. But a person with schizophrenia, sort of thing, you know, the stress does not interact with the genes to such an extent that it causes the development of the condition, or precipitates the condition.

It will occur in other psychiatric conditions, such as anxiety and depression. It will not occur in schizophrenia.[48]

1. In his oral evidence, Dr Serry was asked to identify how the transport accident contributed to the conditions he had identified. In respect of the schizophrenia diagnosis, he said:

I would say that the transport accident was perhaps a factor which contributed to the onset of psychotic symptoms in an already vulnerable individual, not by any means the sole cause of the development of the psychotic condition.

[After describing research on the condition] . . . in the contemporary situation that's probably the most common cause, but there are other traumas, events in one's life which can tip a vulnerable individual over into what then becomes a psychotic condition.[49]

1. It was put to Dr Serry that the highest he could put matters was that it remained a possibility that the transport accident contributed to the onset of Ms Sahin's schizophrenia. Dr Serry said in response:

If you were to ask me, is it more likely than not that the accident was a contributing factor to the development of her current and ongoing psychiatric condition, I would say yes, more likely than not. Does that imply that perhaps not, well yes it does, but "perhaps yes", more than "perhaps not". That's what I would say.[50]

1. The following question and answer was then given:

Mr Bourke: And if I could just take you back to - you've separated out, as Mr Chen asked you to do this, the depression and the traumatisation features. And in relation to the relationship between the transport accident and the schizophrenia, I'm suggesting to you that, given well what we don't know about - what we do and don't know about

Ms Sahin's pre-accident history, the lack of documentation of the development of her psychotic symptoms following the accident, prior reference to paranoia on 13 November 2014, and the clear risk factors and the - Ms Sahin's reported work history, is that the appropriate response to the issue of whether or not the transport accident is a cause of the schizophrenia is that you simply don't know?

Dr Serry: I would not be so bold as to say that I do know, so I'm not going to disagree with you.[51]

1. Given my earlier findings as to the injury which was the subject of TAC's two decisions - schizophrenia rather than some larger group of mental health conditions - I have considered the evidence about whether the transport accident was a cause of that psychiatric condition.
2. I have accepted Dr Serry and Assoc Prof Doherty are experts in the field of psychiatry. They gave their evidence carefully and were informed about all of the evidence presented to me when they gave their oral evidence.
3. Given the difference of view between the experts, in order to find Ms Sahin's transport accident was a cause of her schizophrenia injury, I must be satisfied that the evidence before me is such that I can draw an inference of a probable connection between the two. Such an inference cannot arise from speculation or guesswork - it must be the more probable inference to be drawn.
4. I have concluded that I must give greater weight to Assoc Prof Doherty's unshaken opinion that the transport accident was not a cause of and did not significantly contribute to or precipitate the illness.
5. In reaching that view, I have taken account of the large degree of agreement between the experts as to the nature of schizophrenia as set out earlier and the very limited area of disagreement between them on the causation issue.
6. I have given weight to Dr Serry's opinion about the relationship between the illness and the transport accident but noted that he ended up expressing it in reserved terms. As set out above, while Dr Serry's evidence was that he considered it more likely than not the transport accident was a contributory cause of the illness (sometimes expressed as a 'contributory factor'), he qualified that by explaining he meant that in terms of weighing on the 'perhaps yes' side of the question rather than the 'perhaps not' side. I have also taken into account his very honest evidence, once presented with the range of factors listed by Mr Bourke and the inherent uncertainty about a number of those, that he would not be so bold as to say he knew the transport accident was a cause of the illness.
7. Dr Serry's evidence is insufficient to allow me to draw the necessary inference that it is more probable that the transport accident was a cause of Ms Sahin's schizophrenia injury.

1. Given my findings as to the scope of TAC's decisions and as to the question of causation, TAC's 4 and 5 May 2016 decisions will be affirmed.

[1] Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] 46 FLR 409.

[2] Golem v Transport Accident Commission [2002] VCAT 319.

[3] Raznovski v Transport Accident Commission [2005] VCAT 652 at paragraph 38; Beaumaris Football Club v Hart & Ors and Bayside City Council v Hart & Ors [2017] VSCA 226; and Davies v Nilsen [2017] VSCA 202.

[4] Gennimatas v Transport Accident Commission [2002] VSC 552.

[5] Assoc. Prof Doherty's report dated 22 April 2016 (Respondent's Tribunal Book, page 39) and Dr Serry's reports dated 17 November 2015, 11 February 2016, 8 July 2016 and 27 March 2017 (Applicant's Tribunal Book, pages 22, 32, 35 and 38 respectively).

[7] Written submissions dated 13 August 2018, paragraph 66.

[8] Reply submissions dated 20 August 2018, paragraph 18.

[9] [2003] VCAT 389.

[10] [2017] VSC 123, paragraphs 25 to 36.

[11] Respondent's Tribunal Book, page 71.

[12] I noted that Dr Silver referred to 'Zelmax'. As the other practitioners referred to Zeldox as the relevant medication, I have assumed Zelmax is an alternative name or it was a typographical error.

[13] See later discussion as to the father's medical history.

[14] Respondent's Tribunal Book, page 122.

[15] Respondent's Tribunal Book, page 123.

[16] Dr Silver's notes, page 261. I note the certificate in evidence referred to the period covered as '7 November 2015 to 19 April 2015' but Dr Silver agreed in his oral evidence that was a typographical error and the starting date was 7 November 2014.

[17] Respondent's Tribunal Book, pages 16 and 60 respectively.

[19] Transcript, pages 66 to 68, 71, 81 to 82, 95 to 96, 109 to 110 and 117 to 119.

[20] Applicant's submissions dated 13 August 2018, paragraphs 31 to 33 and reply submissions dated 20 August 2018, paragraph 5; Respondent's written submissions dated 13 August 2018, paragraph 40(b).

[22] Applicant's Tribunal Book, page 15-1.

[23] Applicant's submissions dated 13 August 2018, paragraphs 22(2), 29, 31 to 33 and reply submissions dated 20 August 2018, paragraph 8; Respondent's written submissions dated 13 August 2018, paragraphs 40(l) to (m). See also Dr Silver's records of his consultations with Ms Sahin in September and November 2014; Dr Serry's report 17 November 2015, page 3 and Assoc Prof Doherty's report dated 22 April 2016, page 5. Dr V Kumar's 15 May 2015 report says Ms Sahin reported to him she first heard voices in around November 2014 (Applicant's Tribunal Book, page 16).

[24] Applicant's Tribunal Book, page 15A.

[25] For example, see Monash Health letter dated 5 March 2015 (Applicant's Tribunal Book, page 15) and Dr A Singh's reports dated 21 June 2016 and 6 June 2017 (Applicant's Tribunal Book, pages 15-35 and 15-46 respectively).

[26] Applicant's Tribunal Book, page 13A.

[28] Assoc Prof Doherty's report dated 22 April 2016 and at transcript, page 195.

[34] For example, Dr Kumar's report dated 31 July 2015 and Dr Singh's reports dated 6 June 2017 and 21 June 2016 - Applicant's Tribunal Book, pages 18, 15-35 and 19 respectively.

[35] Transcript, pages 111 to 112, 116 and 121.

[37] Assoc Prof Doherty's report dated 22 April 2016 and Dr Serry's report dated 27 March 2017.

[38] Dr Serry, transcript, page 144 to 145; Assoc Prof Doherty, transcript, page 192

[39] Dr Serry, transcript, page 145-146; Assoc Prof Doherty, transcript, page 221 to 223.