Reflecting on the feedback, I acknowledge that my comments may have inadvertently conveyed unintended implications. My intent in highlighting potential improvements was to demonstrate a proactive approach toward continuous enhancement, rather than critiquing the competence of the RACP and its staff or existing practices....

.... I deeply value the professionalism and dedication of our team at the RACP and hold the utmost respect for the College's programs. My words were intended to express a commitment to refining our processes and striving for excellence rather than indicating any deficiencies within our organisation....

.... Acknowledging the importance of maintaining a positive and supportive environment both internally and in all interactions with external stakeholders, I regret any perception of inappropriateness or unprofessionalism that may have arisen due to my statements.

Rest assured, I am taking this feedback seriously and will be more mindful of my language and its potential interpretations in future engagements. I am committed to fostering a culture of collaboration and continuous improvement within the RACP, with training sites and with the Department of Health and Aged Care. I would like to offer reassurance regarding my commitment to upholding the values and reputation of the RACP.

Thank you for bringing this mater to my attention. This feedback is invaluable, and I am dedicated to learning from this experience to prevent such misunderstandings in the future."[2]

1. On 11 December 2023, John McConville wrote to the applicant stating (unedited):

"As discussed on Monday, 11 December 2023 with myself and Inga Kajasa-Bowkett (Business Partner, People & Culture) the RACP has reviewed and considered your response, received on 30 November 2023 to the matters of concern raised on 28 November 2023.

After careful consideration, the RACP has concerns in relation to your suitability with the organisation as Program Manager, Specialist Training Program (STP) and is considering ending your employment within your probation period.

You are invited to provide any further or mitigating reasons as to why the RACP should not end your employment. Any response you wish to provide must be provided in writing by 11am Tuesday, 12 December 2023 to Inga Kajasa-Bowkett.

Please note, if no response is received from you by that time, the RACP will make its final decision about your employment and inform you of that decision.

A final decision about your employment will be made by Tuesday, 12 December 2023. We will be scheduling a meeting with you at 3pm on Tuesday, 12 December 2023 to advise you of the decision. You are welcome to bring a support person to this meeting.

A free and confidential counselling service is available to you through the RACP Employee Assistance Program provided by Telus Health and they can be contacted on 1300 361 008."

1. The applicant engaged Green & Associates who wrote to the respondent on

12 December 2023 in response to the above show cause letter maintaining there was insufficient time to reply thereby resulting in a denial of procedural fairness and natural justice. The letter requested an extension of time to respond to the show cause notice by

18 December 2023. The letter enclosed a plain medical certificate signed by Dr Botros stating that the applicant was "unwell and unfit for work from 12/12/23-15/12/23 (inclusive)".[3] 2. Green & Associates further wrote to the respondent on 19 December 2023 requesting compensation rather than responding to the show cause letter. (At this juncture, the respondent had taken no formal action in relation to the applicant's employment due to medical certification despite the show cause period having elapsed). 3. On 21 December 2023, the respondent, via its solicitor wrote to the applicant's legal representative indicating that given the terms of its letter dated 19 December 2023, it understood the applicant had regarded his employment as having ended and that he no longer intended to be bound by the contract of employment or participate in the process, formally notifying the applicant that his employment was terminated effective

21 December 2023.[4] 4. Fair Work Proceedings were then instigated although subsequently discontinued. A workers compensation claim was then made. Following assessment of that claim, the insurer denied liability with reference to s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). 5. This prompted the filing of an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission). The application claimed weekly compensation from

18 November 2024 to date and continuing and medical expenses. A deemed date of injury was nominated as 11 December 2023 with the particulars of injury nominated as (unedited):

"The applicant suffered primary psychological injury as a result of being bullied, harassed and unfairly terminated by his colleagues at The Royal Australasian College of Physicians"

1. The matter underwent the usual case management pathway ultimately proceeding to arbitration on 23 July 2025 where the parties requested that I determine the matter.
2. Mr Carney of counsel instructed by Mr Zaman represented the applicant. Mr Perry of counsel instructed by Ms Pritchard represented the respondent. Ms Gillard was the insurer representative.
3. At the outset the respondent did not dispute injury nor the claimed pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE). The issue that requires determine is a narrow one, relevantly whether the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the respondent's reasonable actions with respect to dismissal and the provision of employment benefits/termination.
4. No oral evidence was called. The documents assessed in the course of decision making were limited to the ARD, the Reply and Applications to Lodge Additional Documents filed by the applicant on 1 July 2025 and the respondent on 17 July 2025.

1. The law relevant to this application is found in the 1987 Act.
2. A psychological injury must satisfy the definition of injury within the meaning of s 4 of the Act (relevantly):

(a) means personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment,

(i) a disease that is contracted by a worker in the course of employment but only if the employment was the main contributing factor to contracting the disease, and

(ii) the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration in the course of employment of any disease, but only if the employment was the main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the disease..."

"No compensation is payable under this Act in respect of an injury that is a psychological injury if the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by, or on behalf of the employer with respect to transfer, demotion, promotion, performance appraisal, discipline, retrenchment or dismissal of workers or provision of employment benefits to workers." (my emphasis)

1. At this juncture, it is prudent to unpack s 11A, a task that is easier said than done, given that no two cases the same and each case will turn on its own merits. However the fundamental principles as they are relevant to this matter follow.

"'psychological injury' is an injury (as defined in section 4) that is a psychological or psychiatric disorder. The term extends to include the physiological effect of such a disorder on the nervous system."

1. This term is not defined by the Act. Review of the case law establishes the following;

(a) "wholly" and "predominantly" are separate concepts and only one of the definitions needs to be satisfied. The words are independent of each other;

(b) it is generally accepted that it means "mainly or principally caused"[5] (Poonan);

(c) the question of causation must be addressed by medical evidence

(d) causation is a question of fact to be determined on the evidence in each case (Kooragang).[7]

1. Again, not defined by the Act and difficult to succinctly define, however the following non exhaustive summary of key principles are acknowledged;

(a) in determining whether conduct was reasonable, all relevant factors must be taken into consideration including the rights of both employee and employer (Rashov);[8]

(b) the test is objective and must weigh the rights of employees against the object of the employment. Whether an action is reasonable should be attended, in all circumstances, by questions of fairness (Irwin);[9]

(c) when considering the concept of reasonable action a decision maker is required to have regard not only to the end result but to the manner in which it was effected (Ivanisevic);[10]

(d) the reasonableness of a person's actions is assessed by reference to the circumstances known to that person at the time the action is taken (Heggie);[11]

(e) procedural and policy documents of the employer will be relevant evidence to consider. However, reasonableness will not be established simply because the employer complied with their own protocols if those protocols were not reasonable (Aravanopules),[12]and

(f) the concept of reasonableness does not require a counsel of perfection. It requires, that all of the circumstances of the case are considered and that the action then be considered in an objective sense to be reasonable or not.

The respondent's position - evidence and submissions

1. In addition to the communications and chronology summarised in paragraphs 1 to 10 of this statement of reasons, the respondent relies on the statement of John McConville dated

12 March 2024 which when summarised advances the following;[13]

(a) the applicant was employed as a Program Manager, Specialty Training Program subject to contract and a six-month probationary period;

(b) claims of workplace bullying and discrimination are denied;

(c) there were a number of issues in relation to performance but none formally documented or the subject of "first warnings" rather feedback was given with monthly meetings in an environment where the conversations were "fairly relaxed";

(d) prior to the reported behaviour in Melbourne, he had concluded the applicant was not "quite fitting in, however I was prepared to give him some further time to improve";

(e) as regards the conduct, it was stated (unedited);

"17. The Claimant did not grasp that he was making disparaging comments; his travelling companion Penny had been the manager for a number of years prior, as well as two other managers, had not previously had any issue with meeting deadlines for critical reports to the department.

18. The Department looks to us as an exemplar on how to do certain things, so it was an extreme action to go to the Department and tell them that aspects of our organisation was in desperate need of reform, in essence the Claimant had just slandered his two colleagues that report to him and his predecessors. His conduct was completely inappropriate";

(f) he recalls the applicant's solicitor seeking compensation on 19 December 2023 and suggesting overall that the applicant no longer wished to be employed by the College and so in response a decision was made that the final day of employment was 21 December 2023 and this was communicated by the respondent's lawyers, and

(g) on 3 January 2024, the applicant had posted on LinkedIn "seeking urgent work opportunities".

1. That LinkedIn post was attached to the Reply and states (unedited);[14]

I am currently looking for a new position to jump into asap. The position can be based in Sydney, or also happy to work remote/hybrid.

I have extensive operational/people management experience, program/project management and am extremely process improvement focused with a growth mindset.

I also have many years experience working for State Government, and advanced C-Suite Stakeholder Management, however would be open to breaking outside of this into other corporate or start-up companies.

Let me joint you or line me up with any people in your network that could help place me into a new opportunity where I can deliver results for a company for the new year and beyond!

Also open to operating in any capacity, including contract based work, ideally hoping to align salary and benefits with previous work, but also open to negotiation.

1. The respondent qualified Dr Patil, consultant psychiatrist who reported on 22 July 2024 and 12 August 2024. He concluded the applicant suffered from an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. He recommended psychological intervention which would achieve remission and improve functioning allowing for a gainful return to employment. He considered employment was the main contributing factor but declined to opine on whether the actions of the employer were reasonable, this being a legal question and outside of his field of expertise.[15]
2. When summarised, counsel for the respondent submitted:

(a) injury is not in dispute. The respondent accepts the applicant sustained an injury within the definition of s 4b of the 1987 Act but seeks to rely on the defence found in s 11A of the 1987 Act specifically with regards to dismissal and/or provision of work benefits;

(b) the respondent understands that it bears the onus of establishing that employment was the whole or predominant cause of injury and also that its conduct was reasonable. It is satisfied it can easily meet that onus;

(c) the evidence demonstrates the whole or predominant cause that give rise to the applicant's injury was the disciplinary process;

(d) the actions taken by the respondent were objective and reasonable and the way the respondent dealt with the situation was fair, the applicant was given a summary of key issues the respondent required him to respond to; it was done in a timely fashion with a timely response required; EAP was offered, a support person was allowed. The records show no assumptions were made as the applicant was allowed to "state his case". Appropriate and reasonable policies and procedures were followed. The respondent did not terminate employment until it was served with a letter that did not respond to the 'show cause' but rather sought compensation and suggested that the applicant no longer wished to be employed. It could have terminated employment prior to the expiry of the probation period but having been served with a medical certificate elected not to do so in the interests of procedural fairness;

(e) as part of the disciplinary process, the meetings were arranged to obtain information from the applicant about the background of events and statements made in Melbourne to a very important stakeholder. The applicant responded by expressing regret about any perception of inappropriate or unprofessionalism that may have arisen, extending sincere apologies and thanking his supervisor for the feedback and acknowledging the professionalism of the respondent;

(f) the ARD suggests that the applicant suffered injury on account of the nature and conditions of his employment with his statement alluding to bullying, harassment and homophobic conduct, which has not been established by the medical evidence or the history. Whilst the perception of the event may be sufficient to constitute such a view, they must be based on real events. I was referred to the matter of Attorney General v K;[16]

(g) the veracity of incapacity claimed is questionable given the applicant's post seeking urgent employment on LinkedIn as early as January 2024, and

(h) PIAWE is not in dispute.

The applicant's position - evidence and submissions

1. In his statement dated 5 March 2024, the applicant confirmed he was fit and well prior to his employment with the respondent. He attended the meeting in Melbourne with a colleague Penny who was shortly about to retire. He understands that Penny informed the respondent of various statements he had made to stakeholders which he maintains were misconstrued and "interpreted in her own way". He recounts the meeting on 28 November 2023 and providing a detailed response as requested by 30 November 2023. He recalls the follow up meeting on 11 December 2023 and is critical of John McConville's attendance via teams stating that it showed he had "no real care". He sought legal advice and commenced a Fair Work application and ultimately withdrew it.
2. Specifically the applicant states (unedited);

"I felt a great amount of discrimination from John McConville, my line manager, surrounding this termination. I knew he was quite religious and quite homophobic.[17]

I am deeply troubled by the perceived hostility and unfair treatment from both my direct manager and the senior executive officer I managed....

I cannot help but feel that the complaint lodged against me lacked both substance and fairness, and has lead me to where I am now with psychological injuries, including constant anxiety, stress, depression and feelings of worthlessness.... There was no impartial investigation into the complaint beyond the senior executive's interpretation of the update that I provided during the meeting, nor was there any attempt to discuss or clarify the issues raised directly with me from either of the other parties involved in lodging the complaint through HR. This ordeal feels like a targeted attack of my character, possibly stemming from prejudice against my sexuality. It appears that my sexual orientation has been unfairly conflated with my professional capabilities, leading to an attempt to undermine my positon within the organisation, resulting in being unfairly dismissed from my position, as these two staff members saw this as an easy way to eliminate working closely with someone that identified as being gay..."[18]

1. On 2 May 2025, in a further statement the applicant discusses the impact of the situation on his activities of daily living and social functioning. He confirms he has not been in receipt of Centrelink benefits but did receive workers compensation payments between

11 December 2023 to 17 November 2024. Relevantly he states:

"my experiences of feeling undermined in my position due to my sexual orientation has put doubt in my capabilities and causing me to feel a sense of worthlessness. I feel like I will never be employed by anyone anywhere again. I have not been able to return to work as I become extremely stressed and anxious when I start to look for new jobs."[19]

1. On 19 June 2025,[20] the applicant provided a further statement in response to John McConville's statement. He repeats his concerns about homophobic prejudice in the workplace and receiving the calendar invite the day prior to the meeting which contained vague and concerning language adding to his stress and anxiety. He recalls receiving positive past feedback in "one on one" meetings but overall the meetings were "largely devoid of any meaningful support or guidance". He confirmed that the recount of events at the meeting on 11 December 2023 by John McConville was accurate but during the meeting he was left with the impression that the "outcome was predetermined".
2. The applicant further highlights the date of injury was 11 December 2023 (as recorded by his general practitioner) resulting from a diagnosis considered to be related to the "distressing meeting on 11 December 2023".[21]
3. The applicant states his lawyer sought compensation prior to commencing Fair Work Proceedings on the basis that employment was untenable, but that this was not his pre-existing desire to leave but rather was due to a direction consequence of,

"the discriminatory treatment, the flawed investigation process, and the toxic work environment created by RACP's actions.... effectively constituting a constructive dismissal. The statement about no longer wishing to be employed was a result of RACP's actions" [22] and the actions to terminate was based on their interpretation of my lawyers letter, which was itself a response to their handling of the situation."[23]

1. The applicant also confirms the LinkedIn post which was "made before the anxiety, stress and depression, and mood imbalances truly took hold and significantly impaired my ability to function and actively pursue new employment".[24]
2. The applicant qualified Dr Saboor, psychiatrist. In his report dated 7 March 2025 he diagnosed persistent depressive disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, ADHD by history and a differential diagnosis of borderline personality disorder and biopolar affective disorder. He concluded the applicant had a primary psychological injury as a result of his work issues.
3. Dr Joshua Lee, general practitioner issued Certificates of Capacity certifying the applicant unfit for employment on account of "stress, adjustment disorder with depressed and anxious mood arising from discrimination and bullying by colleagues".
4. When summarised, counsel for the applicant submitted;

(a) the process was not reasonable and the applicant felt ambushed in the meeting and that the complaints raised by the respondent were trivial in the overall scheme of things and certainly misconstrued;

(b) psychological injuries are generally cumulative and it is clear there was some workplace tension between the applicant and John McConville and that the meeting regarding "Melbourne matters" was the "straw that broke the camel's back", and

(c) it was emphasised that the applicant's perception is a primary consideration. If conduct which actually occurred in the workplace was perceived as creating an offensive or hostile working environment, and injury followed, it was open to the Commission to conclude that causation was established (Chemler).[25]

Has the applicant sustained a psychological injury?

1. The medical evidence suggests past psychological difficulties, although the evidence and conduct of the applicant reveals he was functional and well managed. I find the medical evidence supports that the applicant has sustained an aggravation of a pre-existing psychological injury. I accept the opinions of the qualified specialists. I also note that this was not disputed by the respondent. Section 4(b)(ii) is satisfied.
2. I find on the basis of the qualified medical evidence, employment was the main contributing factor to the claim for psychological injury. The applicant contends that psychological injury was not wholly or predominantly due to the disciplinary process but rather due to the respondent's general conduct, a matter discussed further below.

1. Before embarking on a discernment of s 11A it is necessary to be satisfied that the meetings that occurred at work fall within the definition of discipline.
2. I find that the meetings documented above form part of a fact finding disciplinary process and the applicant was subject to 'discipline'. The authority of Heggie clearly establishes that the definition is broad and that any action with respect to disciple is capable of extending to the entire process involved in the disciplinary action, including the course of initial inquiries and/or investigation. In these circumstances, the disciplinary process was commenced on 28 November 2023 but was never completed due to the applicant's withdrawal from the process. (That is the applicant was invited to show cause as to why his employment should not be terminated but elected to seek compensation via his industrial lawyers). I so find.

Was the psychological injury wholly or predominantly caused by the above disciplinary process?

1. As indicated above, the applicant has claimed multiple issues which caused psychological injury prior to his cessation of employment. The ARD pleads the applicant "suffered primary psychological injury as a result of being bullied, harassed and unfairly terminated by his colleagues at The Royal Australasian College of Physicians". These are very significant allegations.
2. The term "bullied and harassed" is wide and non specific. The applicant's statements do not refer to any specific events, discussions or incidents (outside of the disciplinary process) but rather generally makes the allegation his direct supervisor was homophobic and such prejudice resulted in the applicant being marginalised in the workplace.
3. It is my view pleadings alleging claims of bullying and harassment should, at a bare minimum, particularise with precision what events constitute such behaviour and detail specifically the applicant's frame of reference/definition for the term "bullying and or harassment", in the context of the particular employment relationship. A failure to particularise what behaviour is actually deemed to fall within the ambit of "bullying and harassment" prevents a decision maker from accurately assessing the circumstances and indeed prevents a meaningful response from the respondent. Without particularisation, the claim is nothing more than a collection of the applicant's grievances (perceived or otherwise) ascribed to a term that is broad and non-descript.
4. I have reviewed the extensive medical material and have noted that there are no contemporaneous complaints of psychological symptoms relating to the workplace prior to the Melbourne incident. In fact the applicant states he received good one on one feedback and there were no complaints. Relevantly, his letter dated 30 November 2023 expresses that he was apologetic for any behaviour that may have caused offense and further more states ".... I deeply value the professionalism and dedication of our team at the RACP". The applicant did not make any suggestion in his letter that he was mistreated or marginalised or subject to "bullying and harassment" but rather refers to values of the employer and its professionalism. I so find.
5. I have cause to doubt the veracity of the applicant's perception of events (Attorney General v K). The applicant reported to Dr Saboor that he was terminated, which is not the case. He was given an opportunity to show cause as to why his employment should not be terminated. His employment only ceased when the respondent was served with a claim for compensation at which point it took the decision to terminate employment, when it was determined the applicant did not wish to show cause or continue with his employment.
6. As indicated above, the applicant argued that due to bullying and harassment he suffered injury meaning of the Act. To succeed on this point, the applicant must demonstrate on the balance of probabilities that the conduct complained of resulted in an 'injury' within the meaning of the Act. Whilst briefly summarised above, in the case of psychological injury, it is necessary to emphasise the applicant must show that:

"the nervous system was so affected that a physiological effect was induced, not a mere emotional impulse ... ...Frustration and emotional upset do not constitute injury ... nor, ... a mere 'anxiety state' .... a 'straight litigation neurosis' is not compensable; ... a misperception of actual events, due to the irrational thinking of the worker leading to a psychiatric illness is not compensable ... It follows that subsequent rationalisation of earlier innocuous events, which rationalisation leads to psychiatric illness is also not compensable. Furthermore, once the applicant has established 'injury' ....incapacity for work resulted therefrom."[26] (Stewart)

1. Authorities also establish that if conduct which actually occurred in the workplace was perceived as creating an offensive or hostile working environment and a cognizable injury followed, it is open for the Commission to conclude that causation was established.[27] (Chemler)
2. The first presentation to the general practitioner relating to workplace stressors only occurred after the above meetings. There is no contemporaneous evidence to establish that the applicant sustained 'injury' and 'incapacity' prior to 12 December 2023 arising from the conduct of peers or direct supervisor or any workplace activity. I further find that there has been no examples of what the homophobic prejudices were either prior to the disciplinary process or during the process.
3. I cannot find that the disciplinary process either in whole or in part could fall within the definition of bullying and harassment. This is because I find the process to be transparent. The respondent did not drag out the process, it was done in a timely fashion, a support person was allowed, the matters were documented and a right of reply was given. No assumptions had been made at the meetings and procedural fairness was afforded to the applicant. Whilst I accept that the process was uncomfortable and unpleasant, this of itself is not bullying or harassment.
4. Having regard to the evidence and authorities, I find there was no incapacity or injury arising from alleged bullying and harassment of the applicant in the course of his employment (Stewart). There does appear to be anxiety and tension arising from personal circumstances but no diagnosable injury resulting in incapacity prior to that time, with injury and incapacity following only after the 12 December 2023 meeting when the applicant presented to his general practitioner maintaining he had been unfairly treated in the workplace.
5. For these reasons, I find that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the disciplinary action. As summarised above, this finding has been made on the basis of the medical and factual evidence and the chronology of events.

Was the action taken or proposed to be taken by the employer "reasonable action"?

1. The definition of reasonable is broad and I have summarised key principles in paragraph 22 above.
2. Having regard to the authorities discussed above, I find on careful review of the evidence that the overall disciplinary action was "reasonable action" within the scope of s 11A. This is because;

(a) the applicant was given notice of a meeting which was convened the day following. The applicant suggests this timeframe should be the subject of scrutiny, suggesting a premeditated or predetermined outcome, but I find that the timely convening of a meeting was appropriate. To have delayed the meeting after giving notice of it would only no doubt increase anxiety, with such delays not being justified given that the meeting could be and was conducted via TEAMS. I find the timeframes were not onerous. The applicant held a senior and responsible position. He had not alerted the respondent of any disability preventing meaningful participation in the meeting and indeed none was medically documented at that time;

(b) a meeting was convened in the presence of a support person;

(c) the matters raised in the meeting align directly with the applicant's obligations under his employment contract and specifically 'not to put the employer into disrepute';

(d) the applicant was given an opportunity to respond in writing and was informed of next steps and was notified of support that could be rendered by the employer's EAP program;

(e) the applicant did respond in writing and acknowledged how his actions could have caused concern. His response letter did not raise any issues relating to bullying, harassment or homophobic behaviour, rather is complimentary of the respondent's commitment to professionalism;

(f) despite having an opportunity to unilaterally cease the employment relationship at the six month period (in line with the probationary clause in the employment contract), the respondent sought to allow the applicant to respond to the allegations;

(g) the respondent elected not to make a decision on employment (despite the expiry of the show cause timetable) once it was served with a medical certificate, and

(h) employment was terminated once the respondent was served with a claim for compensation in lieu of a show cause response.

1. I find the above chronology reveals the employer's actions were reasonable but also procedurally fair. The employment contract articulates that either party could rescind the employment within the six month probationary period "during which time either party may terminate the employment for any reason with one week's notice in writing or by the College making a payment to you in lieu of notice for all or part of this notice period".[28] The respondent chose not to take this course of action, which admittedly would have been easier, opting instead, according to Mr McConville whilst acknowledging the applicant was "not quite fitting in, however I was prepared to give him some further time to improve". I accept this evidence.
2. Having regard to the totality of the evidence, I am satisfied that the respondent has discharged its onus on the balance of probability that the applicant's injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken with respect to discipline/provision of employment benefits/termination.
3. Whilst not relevant to the outcome, I cannot ignore the applicant has claimed total incapacity as a result of the events in the workplace. This claim is entirely inconsistent with his representation on LinkedIn in which he openly and boldly seeks employment in the open marketplace after the formal cessation of his employment. The applicant maintains that such action was done at a time when his condition had not become chronic. I find this explanation to be disingenuous as his actions were inconsistent with the medical certification issued at that time, his representations to his medical practitioners and his conduct generally.

1. For the reasons above, I find that the psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the reasonable action taken by the respondent with regards to discipline/provision of employment benefits/termination. This means the s 11A defence succeeds and there will be an award for the respondent.

[5] Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd [2007] NSWWCCPD 92 (Ponnan).

[6] Hamad v Q Catering Limited [2017] NSWWCCPD 6.

[7] Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452.

[8] Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Rashov [2005] NSWCCPD 66 at [82].

[9] Irwin v Director General of School Education (NSWCC, Geraghty J No 14068/97, 18 June 1998, unreported).

[10] Ivanisevic v Laudet Pty Ltd (unreported, 24 November 1998).

[11] Northern NSW Local Health Network v Heggie [2013] NSWCA 225.

[12] Rail Corporation NSW v Aravanopules [2019] NSWWCCPD 65 at [81].

[16] Attorney General's Department v K [2010] NSWWCCPD 76.

[20] ALAD filed by Applicant 1 July 2025 - paragraph 18 - Folio 4.

[25] State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Fritzi Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249.

[26] Stewart v NSW Police Force [1998] NSWCC 57.

[27] State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Fritzi Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249 Basten J.

[28] Clause 5, employment contact - folio 77 Reply.