Weekly payments of compensation and the cost of benefits payable under Division 2 of Part VI of the Act are not to be paid from the date of this decision.

Workers compensation - Entitlement to compensation - whether reasonably arguable case.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988

St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90;

Vos Construction & Joinery Pty Ltd v Norton-Smith [2016] TASSC 38;

Lamont MRD Supermarkets Pty Ltd [2016] TASSC 16.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. The worker is employed as a store manager by a retail outlet trading in Launceston. She has made a claim for compensation for psychological injuries which she asserts, via her claim form, have arisen in these circumstances:

Over the course of my employment, I have been subjected to multiple instances of violent and threatening conduct by customers. The development of symptoms has been gradual over time. I only first realised the severity of the symptoms on 27 November 2024 when I had suicidal thoughts and spoke to my friend about driving off a bridge. This caused me to go to see my doctor. I cannot remember all of the incidents which have lead me to feel this way. I am still working through those. However, I remember the following: > > 3/7/2016 - a woman threatened to slit my throat after being caught stealing. > > 4/1/2018 - I was punched twice in the head by a teenage shoplifter. Police > > attended. > > 19/6/2019 - A theft and confrontation in the same alleyway as the 2018 assault, which re-triggered trauma. Police attended. > > 7/1/2022 - A customer threatened to burn store down. Police attended. > > 13/10/2022 - Verbal abuse and intimidation by known shoplifters. > > 21/12/2022 - Threats from a customer's family after a police photo was > > posted online. > > 31/3/2023 - Threats of physical violence by a known offender, including, 'I will knock you out and slit you.'

2. The worker's claim documents include a workers compensation medical certificate provided by Dr Alex Davies. Dr Davies saw the worker on 3 July 2025. He diagnosed her to be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder and certified her condition to be consistent with having been caused by those events occurring in the workplace and set out above.
3. The employer has elected to dispute liability for the worker's claim and has made this referral to the Tribunal pursuant to s 81A(1)(c) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the Act).

1. Upon a s 81A(1)(c) referral the issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether a reasonably arguable case exists concerning the liability of the employer to pay compensation. If such a determination is made it will follow that the employer will be excused from the obligation to pay compensation either by way of weekly payments or the cost of any benefits payable under Division 2 of Part VI of the Act. However, such an outcome does not preclude the worker from pursuing her claim by a referral to the Tribunal made under s 42 of the Act.
2. It's well settled that the test to be applied in determining whether a reasonably arguable case exists is properly described by Evans J in St Helens Oysters Pty Ltd v Coatsworth [2007] TASSC 90 where it was said at [10]:

The very notion of a 'reasonably arguable case,' like the notion of a 'prima facie case' precludes a final determination of a disputed question of fact. On the face of s81A, a reasonably arguable case will exist concerning the liability of an employer to pay a worker if it is reasonably arguable on the material available in relation to the claim or identified deficiencies or weaknesses in the claim that, following a contested hearing it may be rejected.

3. The employer's case need not be strong nor compelling but must at least be reasonably arguable. See Vos Constructions and Joinery Pty Ltd v Norton-Smith [2016] TASSC 38. The employer bears the onus of establishing the existence of a reasonably arguable case. See Lamont v MRD Supermarkets Pty Ltd [2016] TASSC 16.

1. In support of its position the employer has provided a statement signed by Mr Anthony Wilson, its Managing director. In summary Mr Wison asserts that:

(a) The employer acquired ownership of the Red Herring business on 30 June 2018 and became the worker's employer from that date. It was hence not the employer of the worker at the time of those incidents occurring in 2016 and 2018 as described in the worker's claim form.

(b) The worker had never mentioned to the employer the 2016 incident.

(c) The worker had only mentioned the 2018 incident to the employer 'in passing' and had never suggested that she needed support with respect to it.

(d) The employer has no record of neither the 2019 incident nor the January 2022 incident and first became aware of them when the worker made her claim. The worker never completed an incident report with respect to either of them.

(e) The worker did not complete an incident report upon the incident occurring on 13 October 2022 but had informed the employer of it by email. However, she had not suggested that she was affected or struggling because of the incident.

(f) The employer was unaware of the incident occurring on 21 December 2022 until the worker made her claim.

(g) The worker did not inform the employer of the events occurring on 31 March 2023 until a fortnight afterwards and then advised that the offenders' ban from the store be shortened because they were young and had apologised.

(h) During 2024 the worker had significant periods off work for personal reasons. For example, the worker advised that in March she was unable to work because of 'insomnia and other health issues.' She was unable to work in June because of issues with her personal health. In July her father was hospitalised because of heart failure, and she had further time off work. In October the worker reported that she was having continuing issues with her own health and her father's health. In November she reported that she was having dizzy spells because of high blood pressure. Later that month she reported that she was suffering from a 'type of positional vertigo which makes the room spin.'

(i) Because of her personal health issues and the needs of her father, the worker worked reduced hours from July to late November 2024. Her last day of work was on 23 November 2024. At no time up to this date had the worker asserted that any of her personal health issues were related to her employment.

(j) A previous claim for compensation under the Act was made by the worker in January 2025. It related to the incident occurring on 4 January 2018. This claim was disputed by the employer, and it was determined by the Tribunal that a reasonably arguable case existed with orders being made on 16 April 2025.

(k) Because of the worker's ongoing absences from work the employer wrote to the worker on 25 June 2025 setting out its concerns upon the ability of the worker to continue in her role and that there was potential for her termination. Her written response was sought by 2 July.

(l) On 4 July 2025 the employer received the worker's claim for compensation.

1. It is the employer's case, as I understand it, that the assertions made by Mr Wilson mandate a reasonably arguable case finding for one or more of these reasons:
   1. It is arguable that the majority of those events listed in the worker's claim form did not occur and that the worker may fail to establish a factual basis for her illness and its association with her employment.
   2. To the extent that the worker's PTSD is attributable to the events occurring in 2016 and 2018 there can be no liability attaching to the employer as it was not the employer of the worker at these times.
   3. That the evidence upon the worker's own health and issues arising from her father's ill-health make it arguable that those matters are causative of her psychiatric illness rather than those events in the workplace as described in the worker's claim form.
   4. That it is arguable that those steps taken by the employer in June 2025 with the prospect of a termination of employment were causative of the worker's illness, particularly given the near contemporaneous relationship between those steps and the lodging of the worker's claim. The employer's conduct in this regard was arguably reasonable and avails it of a 'defence' to the claim pursuant to s25(1A) (a) and/or (c) of the Act.

1. The reasons for the worker's resistance to the employer's referral are set out in written submissions provided by the worker's counsel. There are multiple documents attached to the submission including documentation from Tasmania Police, screenshots of Facebook pages, emails written by the worker and the employer and medical reports.
2. To the extent that the employer implies that those events set out in her claim form did not occur the worker submits that the documentation which she has provided overwhelming supports their happening. With respect to these events, I observe:
   1. The documentation from Tasmania Police shows that on 4 January 2018 the worker reported being assaulted by a shoplifter. Police attended, viewed CCTV footage and later apprehended the offender. The worker provided a written statement to police. In it she says she was punched to the face and head 2 to 3 times with a closed fist. The "punches were really forceful, and they hurt me."
   2. The documentation from Tasmania Police shows that on 19 June 2019 the applicant reported to police an incident whereby she pursued and confronted two persons who had stolen goods from the employer's store. Police attended and viewed the store's CCTV footage depicting the thefts. Again, the applicant provided police with a written statement. There are also posts on the Launceston Retail Watch Facebook page which appear to corroborate the event occurring.
   3. A Tasmania Police incident report shows that on 7 January 2022 the worker reported an incident whereby "a guy come into the shop and have an argument over Afterpay. He has thrown his phone at a store worker for him to assist when this did not work he has stated that he would burn the building down." There is also a Facebook post made on the same day which appears to corroborate the happening of this incident.
   4. The Tasmania Police documents show that on 13 October 2022 a report was received from the worker of her confronting two customers whom she suspected were intending to steal items. The worker provided police with a written statement detailing the event. There is also an email reporting the event and forwarded by the worker to the employer dated 19 October 2022. The email refers to the offenders "taunting me."
   5. A police incident report shows that on 16 December 2022 the worker reported the theft of clothing from the employer's store occurring two days previously. The police documents also note that the suspects were identified "after Red Herring put up a Facebook post asking for their identity..." I note that the police documents do not make any reference to the worker receiving threats from the customers' family arising from this event as is asserted in the claim form.
   6. The documents include a screen shot of a post made by the worker on the Launceston Retail Watch Facebook page and dated 31 March 2023. It says, "Red Herring here. Just had Josh Golding in here. Asked him to leave and he verbally abused me and threatened to punch me out and then spat on the window." The documents also include copies of an email exchange between the worker and her employer referencing the event. Specifically, one dated 19 April 2023 and written by the employer's Media and Marketing Co-Ordinator says in part, "after talking to (the worker) and understanding the severity of the threats and how dangerous this man could be, I've decided to take the post down..."
3. I can make these observations upon the medical documentation provided on behalf of the worker:

(a) General practitioner, Dr Tim Mooney has noted in his records an attendance upon the worker on 17 December 2024; "Long discussion re depression-could = PTSD due to repeated attacks (verbal and threatening) from shoplifters..."

(b) Clinical psychologist, Ms Ruth Paul, in a report provided to the employer's insurer on 24 March 2025 opines that the worker "presented with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder resulting from traumatic experiences of workplace violence. She reports a history of exposure to criminal violence in the workplace during the period: January 2018 - January 2025......"

(c) Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist, Dr David Lien provided a report to the worker's solicitors dated 29 July 2025 after having examined the worker 6 days previously. In his opinion the worker suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (chronic), with delayed recognition, secondary to cumulative occupational trauma along with a comorbid diagnosis of major depressive disorder, recurrent episode, severe, without psychotic features. He further opines; "The condition did not arise from a single traumatic incident but rather emerged cumulatively, with employment being the most substantial contributing factor to its development." As to whether factors outside of her employment caused or contributed to the worker's illness Dr Lien states; "Other life stressors, including bereavement and family caregiving responsibilities, may have contributed substantial strain but did not appear to play a primary role in the development of her psychiatric conditions."

1. The foregoing material leads to these submissions being made on the worker's behalf:

(i) The allegation by the employer of a factual dispute relating to those incidents listed in the claim form and their occurrence is a fiction.

(ii) The suggestion by the employer that the worker's illness may arguably be attributable to personal matters separate from her employment is not supported by any medical evidence and is directly contradicted by the medical evidence provided by the worker, most notably the opinion of Dr Lien.

(iii) The submission made by the employer that the worker's illness is arguably attributable to those steps taken by the employer to potentially terminate the worker's employment is not supported by any medical evidence. In any event the submission is without merit because the medical evidence clearly shows that the worker had been diagnosed with her PTSD well before those steps were initiated.

1. It is noted that the worker has not challenged the assertion made by the employer that those incidents occurring in July 2016 and January 2018 preceded her employment with the employer.

1. I will firstly address the issue related to the occurrence of those events as set out in the worker's claim form.
2. The happening of those events identified by the worker to have occurred on 4 January 2018, 19 June 2019, 7 January 2022, 13 October 2022 and 31 March 2023 are all supported by independent evidence, most notably police reports. Independent evidence, again including a police report, also indicate the occurrence of an event on 14 December 2022 and it being posted on Facebook. Logically, it was that event which led to the worker's assertion that one week later she was threatened by the offender's family. Whilst there is not in evidence a police report or other material supportive of the event alleged by the worker to have occurred on 3 July 2016 I am nevertheless satisfied, taking into account all the relevant material before me, that I should reject the employer's submission that it is reasonably arguable those events listed in the claim form did not occur and that the worker has not established a factual basis for her illness.
3. I deal next with the employer's submission that the worker's illness, is arguably attributable to personal issues separate from her employment. For this submission the employer relies solely upon the lay evidence of Mr Wilson. That evidence is directly contradicted by the evidence of Dr Mooney, Ms Paul and Dr Liem. Most particularly, it is noted in his report that Dr Liem expressly opines that matters outside the worker's employment did not play a primary role in the development of her illness.
4. Whether a reasonably arguable case exists must be assessed upon the material available at this time. On this basis I am not satisfied that it is reasonably arguable that personal matters, separate from her employment have been causative of the worker's mental illness.
5. At his consultation with the worker on 17 December 2024 Dr Mooney has postulated that the worker's depressed mental state may equate with PTSD attributable to events occurring at the worker's workplace. In her report to the employer's insurer dated 24 March 2025 Ms Paul expresses the view that the worker suffers from PTSD arising from experience of workplace violence. Ms Paul's report shows that this diagnosis was made following her assessment of the worker on 15 January 2025. Together this evidence strongly suggests that the worker was suffering from PTSD related to those incidents set out in her claim form and that this condition was present well before 25 June 2025 when the employer initiated steps to review the worker's ongoing employment. Given these matters I cannot be satisfied that it is reasonably arguable that the worker's illness of the mind was attributable to those actions of the employer taken in June 2025.
6. This brings me to the employer's remaining submission. It says that it did not become the worker's employer until 30 June 2018 and hence was not her employer at the time of those incidents stated in the worker's claim form to have occurred in 2016 and January 2018. The worker does not dispute these assertions.
7. Of the 2018 incident Dr Liem makes these observations in his report:

[The worker] recounted one particularly distressing incident in January 2018 in which she was physically attacked by two girls, an event she described as having 'left a mark on me.' While she did not immediately recognise the psychological impact of this incident, she reported that her symptoms worsened progressively in the months and years that followed. > > Over time [the worker] developed a chronic sense of fear and hypervigilance, describing her daily experience at work as one of constantly looking over her shoulder and scanning her environment for potential threats. She described entering the workplace each day in fear of what might happen next.

8. These comments made by Dr Liem do suggest that the incident occurring in January 2018 did have a significant impact upon the worker's psyche and it raises the possibility that this event is the foundational event leading to the worker's subsequent diagnosis of PTSD. In my view if, following a contested hearing, the employer was able to establish that a diagnosis of PTSD could not be maintained absent the occurrence of that event in January 2018 it may be able to avoid liability for the worker's claim as it was not her employer at this time. In this circumstance a reasonably arguable case determination should be made, and I determine accordingly. There will be orders pursuant to s 81A (3)(c) and (d).