//
[2026] QIRC 104
General information, not legal advice.
Queensland Industrial Relations Commission
2026-04-01
Original judgment source is linked above.
PUBLIC SECTOR - EMPLOYEES AND SERVANTS OF THE CROWN GENERALLY - PUBLIC SECTOR APPEAL - appeal against a disciplinary decision - where the Appellant is alleged to have punched a coworker - consideration of whether it was fair and reasonable for the Allegation to be substantiated - whether it was fair and reasonable to substantiate the Allegation on the available evidence - whether the substantiation of the Allegation meets the Briginshaw standard - where the evidence relied upon to substantiate the Allegation does not meet the Briginshaw standard - where the appeal is allowed - where the decision is returned to the decision-maker with a copy of these reasons for decision
Industrial Relations Act 2016 (Qld) ss 562B(2), 562B(3), 562C(1)(c),
Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) s 91(1)(b), 91(5)(a)
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336
[1] Ms Sian Walker ('the Appellant') commenced employment with the State of Queensland (Queensland Health) ('the Respondent') in 1994.[1] Ms Walker appeals the decision on disciplinary findings made by Ms Leena Singh, then Acting Deputy Director-General, Health Infrastructure Queensland, Department of Health ('the decision-maker') dated 29 October 2025.
[2] On 13 May 2024, Ms Walker commenced a secondment as a Category Advisor, Procurement and Supply Chain Optimisation, CSD, Department of Health. On 1 July 2025, this position moved into Health Infrastructure Queensland (HIQ), Department of Health. The end date of Ms Walker's secondment is currently 30 June 2026.
[3] Ms Walker has been suspended with remuneration since 3 June 2024.
[4] In the decision of 29 October 2025, the decision-maker determined that one allegation against Ms Walker was substantiated. The Allegation is:
On 13 May 2024, without a reasonable excuse, you punched Ms Courtney Monaghan multiple times in her upper right arm.
[5] Based on the substantiated Allegation, the decision-maker determined that pursuant to s 91(1)(b) of the Public Sector Act 2022 (Qld) ('the PS Act'), Ms Walker is guilty of misconduct, that is inappropriate or improper conduct in an official capacity within the meaning of s 91(5)(a) of the PS Act.
[6] The disciplinary finding decision requests that Ms Walker show cause regarding the proposed disciplinary actions of: ending her current secondment; reduction of remuneration from NG7.4 to NG7.2 for a period of 12-months satisfactory performance after which she may progress an increment level; a ban on undertaking higher duties or other positions within Queensland Health for a period of 12-months; a direction to undertake the 'Working Ethically' training course within iLearn; and a reprimand.
[7] On 19 November 2025, Ms Walker filed a Form 89 - Appeal Notice in the Industrial Registry. To her Appeal Notice, she annexes a schedule with her two grounds of appeal which she says confirms that the decision appealed against was not fair and reasonable:[2]
[8] The Respondent submits that on 13 May 2024, after Ms Walker noticed her access to files within her substantive work unit had been removed due to the commencement of her secondment, she approached Ms Courtney Monaghan, Contracts Administrator, System Procurement, CSD, and punched her in the arm several times.[3]
[9] The Respondent submits that the decision was managed locally within System Procurement until 21 May 2024. On 24 May 2024, Mr Brett Piraner, former Category Manager, System Procurement, provided a file note to Human Resources Advisory Services ('HRAS'), within the Respondent's Human Resources.[4] Mr Piraner provided HRAS with a file note, in which he stated that he witnessed Ms Walker 'physically strike' Ms Monaghan 'in the upper right arm several times'.[5]
[10] On the same date, a HRAS delegate met with Ms Monaghan who confirmed she wanted to lodge a formal grievance pursuant to Directive 11/20: Individual employee grievances. The Respondent's Ethical Standards Unit later determined that the matter did not meet the threshold for suspected corrupt conduct.[6]
[11] On 3 June 2024, Ms Walker was suspended from duty on full remuneration pursuant to s 101(1)(a) of the PS Act, because the decision-maker reasonably believed that she was liable to discipline.[7] Between June and November 2024, further information was sought from Ms Monaghan, Mr Piraner, and Mr Ashish Mahendra, former Director, System Procurement, CSD.[8]
[12] On 3 March 2025, Ms Walker was issued with a first notice to show cause letter ('NTSC letter'), inviting her to show cause as to why a disciplinary finding should not be made on the grounds set out in relation to the Allegation.[9] On 12 March 2024, Ms Walker responded to the NTSC letter,[10] wherein she identified three additional employees who she believed were within close proximity to the alleged incident.
[13] On 2 July 2025, the three witnesses Ms Walker identified in her response to the NTSC letter, namely, Ms Rutledge, Mr Canavan, and Mr Bristow, provided witness statements.[11] On 2 October 2025, Ms Walker was provided the opportunity to respond to 'additional information obtained in relation to the disciplinary process, which included the three witness statements dated 2 July 2025 and a contemporaneous file note from Mr Piraner dated 24 May 2024, which had not previously been provided...'.[12] Ms Walker responded on 14 October 2025.[13]
[14] The Respondent notes Ms Walker's submission that the investigation was not conducted in a procedurally fair manner and cites Darren Gardner v Piacentini & Son Pty Ltd [2024] FWC 211.[14] The Respondent notes that in that decision, the dismissal was found to be harsh, unjust or unreasonable because the employer had 'substantiated the allegations before Mr Gardiner even received the detail of the allegations in writing, let alone before he had the opportunity to respond to them'.[15]
[15] Ms Walker points out that the first sentence in Gardner at [56] states 'am also satisfied Mr Garner's dismissal was unjust given the significant deficiencies in how the Respondent conducted the investigation into the events of 7 and 8 August 2023'.
[16] The Respondent submits that Ms Singh substantiated the Allegation against Ms Walker, only after:[16]
[17] The Respondent notes that Ms Walker says the delay in investigating the matter was inconsistent with Directive 01/24: Workplace investigations. The Respondent notes that cl 5.3 of that Directive relevantly provides that '...Less formal management enquiries by an entity may be sufficient to determine: (a) the relevant facts (b) if a complaint or allegation is likely to be substantiated (c) the appropriate action, including a workplace investigation process should commence.'[17]
[18] The Respondent says that in this matter, it did not undertake a formal workplace investigation of the Allegation against Ms Walker. The Respondent says it elected to undertake management enquiries. The delegate at the time, Mr Green, determined to commence a disciplinary process based on the strength of the available evidence.[18]
[19] While Ms Walker says that she only became aware of the Allegation on 3 June 2024, the Respondent says that Ms Walker was present when the incident occurred on 13 May 2024.[19]
[20] The Respondent notes Ms Walker's submission that she was not asked to provide a statement or response until 3 March 2025. The Respondent acknowledges that there was a considerable period of time before Ms Walker was asked to show cause on 3 March 2025. The Respondent says that between June and November 2024, further information was sought from Ms Monaghan, Mr Piraner and Mr Mahendra. The Respondent says that the timeframe was unavoidable due to difficulties in reaching Mr Mahendra who had since left the Department and relocated overseas.[20]
[21] Ms Walker submits that had her witnesses been interviewed when Mr Piraner provided his statement, they may have been able to verify her version of events. Ms Walker says that this was procedurally unfair. In reply, the Respondent says that no other potential witnesses were identified at the time and they were not identified by Ms Monaghan, Mr Piraner and/or Mr Mahendra during management enquiries. The Respondent says that in the interests of preserving the integrity of the process and maintaining employee confidentiality, Mr Green relied on the available information, including that that there was direct eyewitness evidence from Mr Piraner.[21]
[22] The Respondent says that in her NTSC1 response, Ms Walker nominated three other witnesses, and the Respondent took steps to obtain information from them. The Respondent says that Ms Walker was given an opportunity to respond to the information from those witnesses and their version of events. The Respondent says that Ms Walker's response was considered by Ms Singh, alongside the statements provided by Ms Monaghan, Mr Piraner and Mr Mahendra.[22]
[23] Ms Walker says that the additional witness evidence would have had greater influence on Ms Singh's decision had the interviews been undertaken sooner. The Respondent notes that Mr Bristow said he had no recollection of what occurred on the day. The Respondent says that in the decision, Ms Singh provided a summary of Ms Rutledge's and Mr Canavan's recollection of 13 May 2024:[23]
Ms Rutledge, a witness you nominated in your Response, recalled a heated conversation (Attachment 8) and Mr Canavan, another witness you nominated in your Response, recalls Ms Monaghan being upset that day, which I consider to be consistent with Ms Monaghan and Mr Piraner's version of events (Attachment 9).
[24] The Respondent submits that the delay in seeking their statements does not appear to have impacted on their ability to recall the events of 13 May 2024, including the fact that a heated conversation took place between Ms Walker and Ms Monaghan and that Ms Monaghan was upset on the day. The Respondent says that in any event, there was direct witness evidence from Mr Piraner.
[25] Ms Walker says that there is no evidence the Respondent was seeking further information between June and November. Ms Walker says there are no interviews, only the provision of questions to be answered in a document. Ms Walker says that there has been no explanation for the delay in seeking statements from Ms Monaghan and Mr Piraner in August 2024 when the event happened in May 2024.[24]
[26] Ms Walker also says that there has been no explanation as to why Ms Monaghan and Mr Piraner were not interviewed when the assault has been described as a criminal act and the matter is serious.
[27] While the Respondent says that it had all information in November 2024, Ms Walker says it has not explained why it did not provide a show cause notice to her until March 2025.[25]
[28] Ms Walker submits that factual inconsistencies that supported her version of events were overlooked or not considered.
[29] The Respondent submits that whilst not all employees who provided statements witnessed Ms Walker punch Ms Monaghan, that this has no bearing on whether the incident occurred as alleged for the following reasons:[26]
'On the morning of 13th May, I was sitting at my desk frantically trying to put together handover notes and finalise some paperwork prior to my exit. It was my last day at Queensland Health. I noticed that Sian Walker had gone over to Courtney Monaghan's desk and they were talking about something. The conversation sounded like a mild argument and when I turned my head to look in the direction of Courtney's desk, I could see that Sian was standing next to Courtney and telling her to reinstate her (Sian's) access to the shared team folders. In the time that I looked in the direction of Courtney's desk. I did not notice any kind of physical touch or intimidation from either of them... 1 did not witness any physical altercation in my presence and with my own eyes.' (Attachment 5) (Respondent's emphasis).
[30] The Respondent notes that Ms Walker provided a photograph of a desk divider showing the offices at 41 O'Connell Terrace but says that this is not a photograph of the actual workstation where the conduct subject of the Allegation occurred.[27] Ms Walker replies that her photo is not of the actual desk but that the desks relevant to this matter are identical in dimension.
[31] The Respondent provides the following excerpt from Mr Piraner's file note dated 24 May 2024:[28]
'In the AM even date I observed SW approached CM who was seated at her desk and physically strike CM in the upper right arm several times. The punches were made with a clenched fist and delivered with a large amount of force; CM was surprised by SW's arrival. The physical assault on CM was unprovoked nor playful in any way and was not invited by CM'.
'During the assault SW loudly asked CM why her access to the MCCT files and Teams Chat was removed. CM advised that she was following my instructions as she was no longer a member of MCCT'.
'During this altercation I observed SW invading CM personal space, and I could see CM was being intimidated by SW'.
'Before I could intervene, SW focused her attention on me from over the desk divide while still standing next to CM I was seated at my desk on the 6th floor O/Connell Tce'.
'SW in an aggressive manner demanded to know why her access had been removed, stating "She had been a member of the team for over 20 years, and she should be trusted". I informed her that as she had applied for and was successful in obtaining a secondment for 2 years to FFE, protocol stated that her access needed to be removed'.
[32] The Respondent submits that Mr Piraner's contemporaneous file note is a detailed, clear, cogent and compelling record of Ms Walker punching Ms Monaghan and says that it is consistent with Ms Monaghan's version of events. The Respondent says that Mr Piraner advised that he witnessed the punching despite being sat down, said that he was not able to intervene, and that Ms Walker had aggressively demanded to know why her access to files had been removed.[29]
[33] Ms Walker says that Mr Piraner's file note of 24 May 2024 is 'just his own words' and not an interview. Ms Walker submits that Mr Piraner cannot have witnessed her punching Ms Monaghan because he was seated behind a desk divider and she continued to have a work-related conversation with him. Ms Walker says that she has continually raised her contention that it would be impossible for any person sitting to see another person sitting on the other side of the dividers, which she says renders Mr Piraner's observation physically impossible.
[34] Ms Walker says that the fact that it would be physically impossible to witness the alleged events from behind the divider, but that Mr Piraner says he observed the events, directly impacts his credibility. Ms Walker says this was not taken into account by the Respondent.
[35] The Respondent says that there is no evidence to suggest that Mr Piraner has fabricated his version of events, nor is there any evidence that he had reason to. The Respondent also notes that when Mr Piraner was asked to confirm his version of events approximately two-months later, Mr Piraner provided the same, consistent version of the events.[30]
[36] Ms Walker submits that Mr Piraner's statement of 2 August 2024 is not an interview and that given he had access to his May 2024 file note, he would have been able to simply cut and paste the material. In the 2 August 2024 document, Mr Piraner described Ms Walker standing and looking over the desk divide and that this is consistent with his admission that he was sitting down. She says that this further corroborates that Mr Piraner was in a position where his ability to observe Ms Monaghan's arm was physically impossible. Ms Walker also notes that Mr Piraner's statement repeats that Mr Mahendra had confirmed he had witnessed the assault when Mr Mahendra's later statement denies that he witnessed an assault.[31]
[37] Further, Ms Walker submits that there has been no verification of particular parts of Mr Piraner's file note dated 24 May 2024. She says that Ms Monaghan has not verified that she spoke to her husband who encouraged her to report the incident. Ms Walker also highlights that there is no evidence from Ms Wenlock that Mr Piraner discussed matters with her or that Ms Wenlock spoke with Ms Monaghan. Ms Walker also says that there is no evidence that Mr Piraner advised HR of the incident on 21 May 2024.[32]
[38] Ms Walker says that Ms Monaghan's complaint is not authored by her but is written by Mr Piraner and contained in his file note dated 24 May 2024. Ms Walker submits that the complaint is hearsay yet is heavily relied upon without being tested by the Respondent. She says that it makes no sense that Ms Monaghan did not want to make a written statement but that she still wanted to make a verbal statement which would be written down, and which would have the same effect. Ms Walker says that if Ms Monaghan did not want to make a statement, the purpose of him recording something is unknown. Ms Walker says that there is no evidence that Ms Monaghan made the complaint and that the words contained in Mr Piraner's statement were hers.[33]
[39] Ms Walker says that despite relying on something it refers to as the Courtney Monaghan Complaint, the Respondent does not mention this complaint in the original show cause in March 2025 or the second show cause in November 2025. Ms Walker says that there is no evidence that the complaint exists and that it was never provided to her. Ms Walker says it remains unclear whether Ms Monaghan's confirmation was verbal or in writing.[34]
[40] Regarding Ms Monaghan's file note of 12 August 2024, Ms Walker says that there is no explanation as to how the document was created. Ms Walker says no explanation has been given as to why Ms Monaghan was asked to write a statement three-months after the incident. Ms Walker says that the written statement is not an interview. Ms Walker says that if the file note was in fact authored by Ms Monaghan, it is an untested and unsigned statement.[35]
[41] With regard to the interview of Ms Monaghan dated 4 November 2024, Ms Walker says that the creation of the document has never been explained. Ms Walker notes that it appears to be three questions asked and written into a word document and is not signed, put into a typical file note template, and that there is nothing to suggest the interview ever took place.[36]
[42] Ms Walker says that in the 4 November 2024 document, Ms Monaghan says that she was grabbed by Ms Walker. Ms Walker says that this is entirely inconsistent with her statement on 23 May 2024 and 12 August 2024 where there is no mention of her arm being grabbed.[37]
[43] Ms Walker also says that the Respondent has provided no explanation as to why there was such a delay in interviewing Ms Monaghan. Ms Walker says that if the interview did actually take place, it would have taken two-minutes according to the content of the 'transcript'. Ms Walker says there was no reason for a six-month delay and that the Respondent has not addressed this 'further obstruction of procedural fairness'.[38]
[44] The Respondent submits that the delegate had to carefully weigh the evidence and that in this matter, it was fair and reasonable for Ms Singh to rely on Mr Piraner's statement and prefer his version of events.[39] The Respondent says that it was also open to Ms Singh to rely on the statements provided by Ms Rutledge, Mr Canavan and Mr Mahendra who it says also provided information which either confirmed or supported Ms Monaghan's and Mr Piraner's version of events.[40]
[45] The Respondent says that Ms Walker's submission that Ms Monaghan would have experienced bruising and Ms Walker's wrist would have been injured, is entirely speculative. The Respondent says that Ms Walker has tried to downplay the events by noting that there was no police report or evidence of bruising. The Respondent says that it is not aware of whether Ms Monaghan required or sought personal medical attention following the incident, but notes that Mr Piraner's file note says that he immediately approached Ms Monaghan after the incident and that he met with her multiple times over the following days and that she was upset.[41]
[46] The Respondent says that it has no power to make a complaint to the Queensland Police Service on behalf of an employee and cannot direct an employee to do so.[42]
[47] Ms Walker submits that Mr Canavan's statement only states that he vaguely remembers Ms Monaghan being upset. Mr Canavan has no recollection of Ms Walker punching Ms Monaghan several times with a clenched fist and significant force. Ms Walker says that Mr Canavan was deliberately not interviewed to obstruct the truth of what had occurred as it would show that both Ms Monaghan and Mr Piraner fabricated their evidence.[43]
[48] Ms Walker says that Mr Bristow also says that he does not recall any incident. Ms Walker says that from where Mr Bristow was sitting, he would have seen the incident and recalled it for a significant period of time. Ms Walker says that punching someone with considerable force, multiple times in the workplace is not common and that he would have remembered it clearly if it had happened. Ms Walker says this was not considered by the Respondent.
[49] Ms Walker notes that Ms Rutledge's statement says, 'they all seemed pretty agitated' and that this indicates more than just Ms Monaghan and Ms Walker. While Ms Walker admits her conversation with Ms Monaghan was heightened, she says this is not evidence that Ms Rutledge saw any clenched fist punching. Ms Walker says that Ms Rutledge's recollection that at first Ms Walker and Ms Monaghan were quietly talking is entirely inconsistent with Ms Monaghan and Mr Piraner's statements. Ms Walker also notes that Ms Rutledge says she did not see any physical contact.[44]
[50] With regard to Mr Mahendra, Ms Walker notes that in his statement, he says that he noticed Ms Walker go to Ms Monaghan's desk and that they were talking about something. Ms Walker repeats that this is entirely inconsistent with Ms Monaghan and Mr Piraner's accounts that Ms Walker had directly approached Ms Monaghan with a raised voice and commenced hitting her.
[51] Ms Walker also says that Mr Mahendra recalls being told that the argument between Ms Monaghan and Ms Walker had gotten 'quite heated' and that there had been 'some sort of physical altercation'. Mr Mahendra's recollection was of a 'mild argument' between Ms Monaghan and Ms Walker and that he did not witness any physical altercation in his presence with his own eyes.[45]
[52] Ms Walker says that Mr Mahendra's statement directly contradicts Mr Piraner's version of events which is that Mr Mahendra corroborated and confirmed to Mr Piraner that he had witnessed the assault. Ms Walker says that this goes to Mr Piraner's credibility and was not considered by the Respondent.[46]
[53] Ms Walker finds the lack of procedural fairness and an adherence to both policy and directives regarding fact finding and investigation 'astounding'.[47]
Standard of Proof - Application of Briginshaw
[54] The Respondent notes that according to Briginshaw,[48] in order to prove a serious allegation, the evidence needs to be clear, cogent and convincing, given the gravity and the consequences of the finding. The Respondent says that Ms Singh carefully considered the available evidence and was satisfied the Allegation was substantiated on the balance of probabilities.[49]
[55] The Respondent says that in NTSC1, Ms Singh clearly outlined why she preferred Mr Piraner's version of events, including that he was an AO8 Manager who said he witnessed Ms Walker punch Ms Monaghan and that his evidence was consistent with Ms Monaghan's version of events. The Respondent says that Ms Monaghan's reasons for making the decision on the balance of probabilities were clearly outlined on pages 4-6 of the letter dated 29 October 2025.[50]
[56] The Respondent says that the decision complied with Directive 05/23: Discipline and took account of the requirements of the PS Act and the principles of procedural fairness.
[57] For completeness, I have considered all submissions and material before me, including the oral submissions of the parties, however, I have confined the reasons set out in this consideration to those matters directly relevant to my decision.
[58] The task before me in this Appeal is to review the decision appealed against and decide if the decision was fair and reasonable.[51]
[59] While the proposed disciplinary action is not termination of employment, a finding of misconduct on the basis of a substantiated allegation of physical assault is gravely serious.
[60] On the basis of the material before me, while the process has been undeniably lengthy for Ms Walker, I accept that the process was procedurally fair where Ms Walker has been given an opportunity to respond. When she provided the names of additional witnesses, the Respondent also took steps to seek statements from those witnesses. Ms Walker was provided with the statements gathered from these people for consideration before she provided her response to the first show cause notice.
[61] Lengthy delay in a disciplinary process is always regrettable; however, it is sometimes unavoidable. In this case, I find the length of the delay perplexing given the seriousness of the Allegation and the amount of information known about the date and location of the events and that the Respondent would have had information about who was present at the time of the alleged incident readily available. There was no external investigator involved and therefore the length of time taken for the disciplinary process was entirely within the control of the Respondent.
[62] Ms Monaghan may have been considering whether or not to lodge a formal complaint against Ms Walker, however the fact remains that Mr Piraner says he witnessed what he has described as a criminal assault. It is unclear why this was not immediately reported and investigated even in the absence of a complaint from Ms Monaghan. I simply do not accept that had the alleged assault occurred and Ms Monaghan had not made the complaint, that no one would have reported the matter and no intervention with Ms Walker would have occurred.
[63] Essentially, what the Respondent asks the Commission to accept is that a physical assault occurred in the workplace on 13 May 2024 and that nothing was done about it until 21 May 2024 when Mr Piraner raised the matter with Human Resources Advisory Services. A further five-months elapsed where more information was sought from Ms Monaghan and Mr Piraner, both of whom work for the Respondent and had already provided statements about events. It is very difficult to imagine that that process took five-months.
[64] It is more plausible that there was a delay in making contact with Mr Mahendra, who had relocated overseas. I am of the view that it may have been reasonable for the Respondent to proceed with the process while it continued to wait for a reply from Mr Mahendra. This is particularly so where Ms Walker was suspended on pay and it was possible that there might be no response from Mr Mahendra. As it turned out, Ms Walker suggested the further witnesses the Respondent had not identified for itself, and the disciplinary process enabled statements to be taken and for Ms Walker to reply to them. The same could have happened in the event Mr Mahendra did finally respond from his new location.
[65] It is regrettable that no efforts were made to determine who else was present at the time of the alleged events and to seek information from them. It was only when Ms Walker identified additional employees she believed were present during the alleged incident that efforts were made to take statements from them. It begs belief that the person undertaking the initial local fact-finding or investigation did not undertake enquiries as to who else was present at work in or near the pod on that day. This oversight contributed to the delay in progressing the show cause process.
[66] The Respondent's submissions are to the effect that the complainant and the key witness who had been discussing the matter and checking in on the complainant did not identify any further witnesses when management inquiries were being undertaken. Given that inquiries were occurring internally, and that the alleged conduct occurred on a specific date and time, some simple steps undertaken by the Respondent would have identified various people who could have been spoken to. It appears the date in question was an 'Anchor Day' where all staff were present. It is confounding that no one thought to undertake further interviews or seek statements from those present.
[67] Ms Walker says she was unaware of the Allegation until 3 June 2024. The problem with the Respondent's submission that Ms Walker was aware of the Allegation as she was present when the incident occurred, is that Ms Walker categorically denies punching Ms Monaghan. In those circumstances, it cannot be said that she was aware of the Allegation from the date of the incident.
[68] By the time the first show cause notice was issued, some ten-months after the alleged incident, this lengthy delay may have prejudiced Ms Walker as the opportunity to obtain a timely recollection of events is lost. However, given the nature of the Allegation, I find that the delay, while lengthy, may not serve to undermine the memory of those present during the alleged incident.
[69] In my view, one is unlikely to forget the day that they were present in the workplace when one employee walked up to another and punched them five times in the arm with force during an unprovoked attack. Even if not directly witnessing the incident, I am of the view that fellow colleagues would have heard or noticed something, or, at the least, would have a recollection of conversations and 'water cooler chat' following the alleged event.
[70] There is also an argument that Ms Walker was not prejudiced by the delay caused by the Respondent choosing to wait for Mr Mahendra's reply. This is because, as is discussed below, Mr Mahendra's reply contradicts Mr Piraner's evidence that Mr Mahendra had told him he had witnessed the alleged assault. According to Mr Mahendra, he did not witness any assault.
[71] According to the Briginshaw principle regarding the standard of proof for serious allegations, the evidence relied upon to substantiate an allegation must be clear, cogent and convincing.
[72] The Respondent points to Ms Singh's decision in which she gives reasons why she prefers Mr Piraner's version of events. Specifically, in the decision-letter Ms Singh states:
[73] Ms Singh's decision also notes that two witnesses nominated by Ms Walker, Mr Bristow and Mr Canavan did not recall the incident. Ms Singh does not accept this as evidence that the incident did not occur.
[74] Ms Singh reiterates her reliance on Mr Piraner's eyewitness statement. Ms Singh says that she finds Mr Piraner's file note to be 'compelling' because it is 'a relatively contemporaneous account'; it is consistent with Ms Monaghan's complaint; it is unambiguous and clearly written; and there is no information to suggest Mr Piraner fabricated the account.
[75] I have reviewed the file note completed by Ms Monaghan on 12 August 2024. The file note HR discussion dated 4 November 2024 largely reflects what was in the 12 August 2024 file note. Ms Monaghan is consistent in her description of Ms Walker raising her voice, yelling, standing over her and punching her.
[76] Mr Piraner's file note of 2 August 2024 largely records the same series of events. I do not accept that this file note is purely an 'eyewitness account' as it appears to reflect things Mr Piraner has been told by Ms Monaghan, for example that Ms Monaghan did not see Ms Walker approaching her, and that Ms Monaghan was surprised.
[77] I find it odd that Mr Piraner takes it upon himself to report that Ms Walker's actions were 'a criminal offense', however, this could simply be reflective of him being shocked at what had allegedly occurred, albeit, his notes were not written following the incident.
[78] With regard to Ms Singh's statement that she had no reason to believe Mr Piraner had fabricated events, I do have questions about Mr Piraner's inclusion in his file note of the following: '[t]his is not the first time I have experienced a passive aggressive interaction with SW, she has been dismissive of me since joining the MCCT'. I am not satisfied that Mr Piraner was an impartial witness in circumstances where he included his own experience of interpersonal conflict with Ms Walker in a statement about what happened to Ms Monaghan despite this being a discrete incident not directly involving him. I do not think this matter has been adequately addressed by the decision-maker.
[79] I note Ms Walker's submissions about where Mr Piraner was seated and her doubts about his claim to have directly witnessed events. It does seem odd to me that Mr Piraner, who has been accepted as an eyewitness to the entire event, from Ms Walker's entry to the area to her location next to Ms Monaghan and the alleged punching, had described himself as sitting at his desk apparently behind the divider during the events. Further, had he directly witnessed the events, I find it unlikely that he wouldn't have attempted to intervene physically or verbally. It is difficult to accept that Mr Piraner did not directly address the alleged assault with Ms Walker having just witnessed it but rather went on to discuss other matters regarding her access to the IT system and related protocols.
[80] Mr Piraner's statement says that he reported the matter to Mr Mahendra whom he claims 'also witnessed the assault'. Mr Mahendra provided an emailed statement on 4 October 2024 in which he recalls that Ms Walker and Ms Monaghan were discussing something and having what 'sounded like a mild argument'. Mr Mahendra does not, as stated by Mr Piraner, confirm that he 'also witnessed the assault'. In fact, he says he 'did not notice any kind of physical touch or intimidation from either of them'. Mr Mahendra says that later in the day he was told the 'argument had gotten quite heated and there had been some sort of physical altercation'. Mr Mahendra does not say who told him this, but as Mr Piraner's statement says that he reported the matter to Mr Mahendra, it is likely that Mr Piraner who told him. Mr Mahendra's statement concludes by stating that he 'did not witness any physical altercation in my presence and with my own eyes'. Beyond that though, Mr Mahendra does not independently recall anything more than 'a mild argument' and Ms Walker standing next to Ms Monaghan.
[81] It makes sense that Mr Mahendra's statement did not confirm Ms Walker's submission that she tapped Ms Monaghan on the arm. Mr Mahendra did not witness any physical interaction at all. I do not think it is safe to say that Mr Mahendra's statement confirms Mr Piraner or Ms Monaghan's version of events.
[82] Mr Piraner says that he continued to have regular private discussions with Ms Monaghan. There may be reason for concern that the recollection and continued discussions of the alleged events between Mr Piraner and Ms Monaghan is the reason Mr Piraner's file note so closely resembles and reflects Ms Monaghan's version of events.
[83] Ms Rutledge recalled a heated conversation with voices elevated. She also recalled that 'they seemed pretty agitated'. Ms Rutledge did not witness any physical contact. In those circumstances, her statement supports part of Mr Piraner and Ms Monaghan's version of events regarding the argument which occurred, however I do not think it is safe to say that Ms Rutledge's statement supports the Allegation regarding the punching.
[84] Mr Canavan recalled Ms Monaghan being upset. I accept that Ms Monaghan was upset and that she may have been upset by the nature of the interaction, even if the alleged punching had not occurred. Mr Canavan did not recall the incident and therefore did not fill in answers to the remainder of the questions on the witness statement form. However, I do note Ms Walker's submission that Mr Canavan's desk was immediately next to Ms Monaghan's. I agree with Ms Walker that in those circumstances, it is likely that he would have recalled if an assault had occurred that close to where he sits. It is, of course, possible that Mr Canavan was not at his desk at the time. I do not consider Mr Canavan's statement to be conclusively corroborative of the statements given by Mr Piraner and Ms Monaghan.
[85] According to Ms Walker's submissions, Mr Bristow's desk is only about one metre from Ms Monaghan and, accordingly, the alleged incident. He has no recollection whatsoever of an interaction between Ms Walker and Ms Monaghan on that day. Of course, it is also possible that Mr Bristow was not at his desk at the time. I find Mr Bristow's statement does not support the version of events of Mr Piraner and Ms Monaghan. If anything, it tends to support Ms Walker's version of events as one may have expected Mr Bristow to have heard something or had something said to him about the matter even if he had not witnessed it himself.
[86] I have given consideration to Ms Walker's contention that the lack of a police report or any evidence of bruising supports her version of events. In my view, the lack of a police report regarding the matter does not make it less likely to have occurred. There was no requirement for the matter to be reported to the police and as the Respondent submits, it is not able to direct an employee to make a police report. I also accept the Respondent's submission that any suggestion the alleged assault would have produced bruising or required first aid intervention is speculative.
[87] I understand that Ms Walker is concerned about the apparent lack of formality of some of the statements or file notes Ms Singh has relied upon. In circumstances where the fact finding has occurred locally and the matter has not been escalated to a formal investigation, it is not unusual for statements to be either handwritten, typed on a basic template (or no template), contained in emails and/or unsigned.
[88] I find Ms Walker's submissions set out in her response to the additional witness statements compelling. It is uncontentious that the alleged event occurred on an 'Anchor Day' and so all staff were present in the office. I am of the view that had Ms Walker punched Ms Monaghan in the arm as alleged, someone would have sought to intervene, or the event would have been reported immediately. This matter has not been adequately considered by the decision-maker.
[89] It seems reasonable to me that Ms Monaghan may have required time to consider whether she wished to lodge a formal complaint; however, the Respondent's position is befuddling with respect to the conduct of eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. In my view, to accept the Respondent's position confounds logic and requires me to accept that multiple employees witnessed this alleged assault on a fellow coworker, took absolutely no action, and continued on with the working day.
[90] I understand that if her version of events is an accurate description of what she experienced on 13 May 2024, Ms Monaghan may find the outcome of this appeal distressing. However, the Allegation is extremely serious, and I must be satisfied that it was fair and reasonable for Ms Singh to determine on the balance of probabilities, applying the Briginshaw standard, that the Allegation was substantiated.
[91] The task before me the subject of this decision does not involve me stepping into Ms Singh's place as decision-maker, but rather, a consideration of whether it was fair and reasonable for Ms Singh to substantiate the Allegation and make a finding of misconduct. The seriousness of that allegation and disciplinary finding means that the nature of the available evidence had to be cogent and compelling. For the foregoing reasons, I am not satisfied that the available evidence before Ms Singh makes the finding fair and reasonable.
[92] I note that Ms Singh finds that 'on review of the available information, there appears to (be) no reason for Ms Walker to approach Ms Monaghan directly'. It appears open to Ms Singh, and admitted by Ms Walker, that it would have been more appropriate for her to contact Mr Piraner or Mr Mahendra about the matter.
[93] Ms Walker admits to raising her voice and expressing frustration at the situation regarding her access to the MCCT drive. On that basis, I accept that there is enough evidence before Ms Singh to find that there was a heated discussion between Ms Walker and, in turn, Ms Monaghan and Mr Piraner. It is a matter for the decision-maker to determine whether this is sufficiently serious to warrant a disciplinary process.
[94] While the process has been subject to unfortunate and inexplicable delay, which has no doubt had a significant detrimental impact on Ms Walker given she has largely lost the opportunity to partake in her two-year secondment, I have concluded that Ms Walker was afforded procedural fairness.
[95] My determination that the decision appealed against was not fair and reasonable has been made on the basis that the available evidence is not such that it justifies a substantiation of such a serious allegation and disciplinary ground of misconduct.
[96] For the reasons I have given, I am setting aside the decision and returning the matter to the Respondent with a copy of these reasons for decision.
[1] Respondent's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 4 December 2025 [3].
[2] Ms Walker's Form 89 - Appeal Notice filed in the Industrial Registry on 19 November 2025.
[3] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [6].
[15] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [24]-[25].
[24] Ms Walker's submissions filed in the Industrial Registry on 12 December 2026 [39].
[26] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [40].
[31] Ms Walker's submissions (n 24) [23]-[27].
[39] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [45].
[43] Ms Walker's submissions (n 24) [28].
[48] Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336 ('Briginshaw').
[49] Respondent's submissions (n 1) [51].
[51] s 562B(2) and 562B(3) of the IR Act.
Walker
State of Queensland
(1938) 60 CLR 336