Workers Compensation – Psychological Injury: Was employer’s retrenchment action reasonable, negating compensation entitlement?

Introduction
Based on the authentic Australian judicial case Ahmadi v New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 402, this article disassembles the Court’s judgment process regarding evidence and law. It transforms complex judicial reasoning into clear, understandable key point analyses, helping readers identify the core of the dispute, understand the judgment logic, make more rational litigation choices, and providing case resources for practical research to readers of all backgrounds.

Chapter 1: Case Overview and Core Disputes

Basic Information:

Court of Hearing: New South Wales Personal Injury Commission
Presiding Judge: Senior Member Kerry Haddock
Cause of Action: Claim for weekly benefits and medical treatment for psychological injury.
Judgment Date: 13 August 2025
Core Keywords:
Keyword 1: Authentic Judgment Case
Keyword 2: Psychological injury
Keyword 3: Retrenchment
Keyword 4: Section 11A defence
Keyword 5: Reasonableness of employer action
Keyword 6: Workers Compensation Act 1987

Background:

The Applicant, Pashtoonyar Ahmadi, was employed by the Respondent, New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd (NEV), as a finance manager for over 14 years. His employment was terminated on 27 March 2024, following advice on 26 March 2024 that his position was to be made redundant as part of a company restructure. The Applicant lodged a claim for weekly benefits and medical expenses, asserting that he sustained a psychological injury due to workplace bullying, harassment, discrimination, and the manner of his retrenchment. The Respondent conceded that the Applicant sustained a psychological injury and had no work capacity, but raised a defence under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, arguing that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by its reasonable action with respect to his retrenchment or dismissal.

Core Disputes and Claims:

The central legal dispute between the parties was whether the Respondent had a valid defence to the Applicant’s claim for weekly benefits and medical treatment expenses, pursuant to section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Specifically, the Court was required to determine:
1. Whether the Applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the Respondent’s action with respect to retrenchment or dismissal.
2. Whether the Respondent’s action with respect to retrenchment or dismissal was reasonable.

The Applicant claimed weekly benefits compensation from 27 March 2024, and future medical expenses.

Chapter 2: Origin of the Case

The relationship between the parties commenced in October 2009 when the Applicant was employed by the Respondent as a finance manager, a role that evolved to include responsibilities as a Chief Financial Officer. The Applicant maintained a consistent and satisfactory performance for many years. However, a gradual deterioration of the workplace environment began to emerge, particularly from 2018 onwards.

The Applicant alleged experiencing increased scrutiny, micromanagement, and inappropriate comments from senior staff, notably Ms Selena Afeaki (director and CEO) and Ms Kirilee Hall (Chief of Business Systems). These comments, according to the Applicant, touched upon his race, religious practices, and even his stutter. He described being subjected to unreasonable expectations, unrealistic timeframes, and menial tasks below his expertise, leading to feelings of humiliation and being undervalued. He stated that his attempts to raise these concerns were dismissed or ignored, creating a hostile work environment. During Ramadan in March 2024, he reported being verbally abused for an alleged mistake and for praying during his lunch break, forcing him to pray in the toilet out of fear. These incidents, he claimed, intensified his pre-existing mental health vulnerabilities, leading to panic attacks and exacerbating his depressive and anxious symptoms.

The decisive moment arrived on 26 March 2024, when the Applicant was abruptly called to a meeting with Ms Afeaki and advised that his position was to be made redundant. The Applicant described this as a “shocking” and “criminal” experience, given his 14.5 years of service. He was disconnected from the internet, denied immediate access to his work emails, and told to leave the office immediately, only to return the next day to collect his personal belongings under supervision, during which he felt monitored. The Applicant viewed this redundancy not merely as a restructuring outcome, but as a targeted action to remove him in an unprofessional and discriminatory manner, particularly as his role was reportedly replaced shortly after his departure. This culmination of events, the Applicant contended, intensified his psychological distress, directly leading to his claim for workers compensation.

Chapter 3: Key Evidence and Core Disputes

Applicant’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The Applicant’s evidence primarily consisted of his two statements (13 May 2024 and 10 March 2025), emails, and reports from his treating general practitioners (GPs), clinical psychologist (Ms Ayesha Farooq), and consultant psychiatrists (Dr Jaspreet Singh and Dr Ashwinder Anand).
* Personal Statements: Detailed accounts of alleged workplace bullying, harassment, and discrimination since 2018. Specific allegations included Ms Afeaki’s derogatory remarks about his race (“This is Australia and not Afghanistan”), mocking his name and stutter, yelling, assigning menial tasks, and pressuring him to resign. He claimed exclusion from key meetings, invasion of privacy (email monitoring), and age discrimination. He stated that his pre-existing war-related PTSD had resolved by 1996 and that his current psychological injury was directly due to the workplace stressors and the manner of his retrenchment.
* Clinical Records (GPs, Psychologists, Psychiatrists): Records indicating ongoing treatment for anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms, with some later entries linking these to workplace bullying and the redundancy. Dr Yang (GP) diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, and exacerbation of PTSD related to ongoing workplace harassment and bullying. Dr Singh (Psychiatrist) recorded the Applicant’s history of constant bullying by the CEO since early 2018, leading to racial discrimination, harassment, and belittlement. Dr Anand (Psychiatrist) similarly linked the injury to micromanagement, abusive behaviour by the CEO, and age/racial discrimination. Ms Farooq (Psychologist) diagnosed adjustment disorder leading to PTSD with anxiety features, stating no pre-existing psychological issues were evident and the work injury was the cause.

Respondent’s Main Evidence and Arguments:

The Respondent’s evidence included statements from Ms Selena Afeaki (director/CEO), Ms Kirilee Hall (Chief of Business Systems), Ms Erin Keen (Human Resources Coordinator), and Ms Karen Hillen (My HR Partner), as well as a report from their qualified psychiatrist (Dr Juan Carlos D’Abrera).
* Management Statements: Denials of bullying, harassment, or discrimination. Ms Afeaki and Ms Hall described the Applicant as sometimes frustrated but not bullied. They asserted the workplace was multicultural and that no one was prevented from practicing their religion. They stated the redundancy was a legitimate business decision due to financial difficulties post-COVID-19 and a necessary restructure/automation of the accounting department, requiring more strategic financial skills than the Applicant possessed. They claimed the Applicant’s reports lacked accuracy, and he exhibited declining performance, particularly after COVID-19 lockdowns. They alleged the Applicant misused company emails and was paranoid.
* Clinical Records (Respondent’s view): The Respondent highlighted clinical records predating June 2023 that referred to the Applicant’s anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms being linked to personal stressors (marital issues, neighbour disputes, NCAT litigation), not workplace issues.
* Dr Juan Carlos D’Abrera (Psychiatrist): Diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, PTSD (in remission), possible prescription medication dependence, personality disorder, and cognitive impairment. He opined that the Applicant’s dismissal “in large part” contributed to his distress but noted discrepancies between the Applicant’s account and management’s, suggesting “personality vulnerabilities” and a tendency to interpret constructive criticism as hostile. He also raised the possibility of malingering due to significant deficits in cognitive testing. However, he concluded that the Applicant’s injury was predominantly caused by his dismissal.

Core Dispute Points:

1. Causation: Was the Applicant’s psychological injury wholly or predominantly caused by the Respondent’s action with respect to retrenchment or dismissal, as per section 11A(1) of the 1987 Act? This involved assessing the role of pre-existing conditions and other life stressors versus the impact of workplace events and the retrenchment process.
2. Reasonableness: Was the Respondent’s action with respect to the Applicant’s retrenchment reasonable in the circumstances, as required by section 11A(1) of the 1987 Act? This involved evaluating the fairness of the process and the manner in which the redundancy was executed.

Chapter 4: Statements in Affidavits

The Applicant’s two statements (dated 13 May 2024 and 10 March 2025) and the Respondent’s witness statements (from Ms Afeaki, Ms Hall, Ms Keen, and Ms Hillen) formed the primary evidentiary basis for the Court’s factual findings. These affidavits presented differing narratives regarding the Applicant’s workplace experience and the circumstances surrounding his redundancy.

The Applicant’s statements meticulously detailed specific instances of alleged bullying, harassment, and discrimination, including derogatory racial comments, mocking of his stutter, religious intolerance, exclusion from meetings, and the abrupt, humiliating manner of his termination. He framed these events as a continuous pattern of mistreatment that exacerbated his mental health. He also submitted emails from June 2023, where he complained of being “attacked from every corner” and accused of personal weakness, which he viewed as attempts to pressure him into resigning.

Conversely, the Respondent’s witnesses collectively denied the allegations of bullying and discrimination. Ms Afeaki and Ms Hall portrayed the Applicant as sometimes frustrated but not subjected to any hostile work environment. They explained the redundancy as a legitimate business necessity due to financial downturns post-COVID-19 and a strategic shift towards automated accounting functions, for which the Applicant’s skills were deemed unsuitable. They highlighted the Applicant’s pre-existing mental health history and suggested that personal issues impacted his work. Discrepancies were noted regarding the Applicant’s prayer practices and his alleged forwarding of confidential company information after his redundancy notice.

The strategic intent behind the Judge’s procedural directions regarding the affidavits was to ensure that all relevant factual allegations and supporting evidence were clearly articulated and exchanged between the parties prior to the hearing. This allowed for a focused arbitration process, narrowing the issues in dispute to the specific elements of the section 11A defence. By requiring detailed statements, the Court facilitated a transparent and efficient process for identifying factual inconsistencies and legal arguments, aiming for a “just, quick and cost effective” resolution. The Judge’s subsequent refusal to reopen the matter to admit further evidence, after submissions were concluded and decision reserved, underscored the importance of parties presenting their full case in a timely manner, consistent with the guiding principles of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020.

Chapter 5: Court Orders

Prior to the final hearing, the Court issued procedural directions to manage the progression of the matter.
* Preliminary Conference: A preliminary conference was held on 30 April 2025, where the parties narrowed the issues in dispute.
* Conciliation/Arbitration Hearing: The matter was listed for a conciliation/arbitration hearing on 17 July 2025.
* Amendment of Application: The Application was amended by consent to claim weekly benefits from 27 March 2024.
* Agreement on PIAWE: The parties agreed on the Applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) and the relevant weekly benefit amounts, should an award be made.
* Concession on Work Capacity: The Respondent did not dispute that the Applicant had, at all relevant times, no capacity for work.
* Admission of Additional Evidence: The Respondent sought and was granted leave to rely on additional evidence (further factual investigation, redundancy documents, Ms Hillen’s statement) at the hearing, without objection from the Applicant.
* Refusal to Reopen Proceedings: Subsequent to the hearing and after the decision was reserved, the Respondent applied on 30 July 2025 to reopen the matter to adduce further evidence regarding the reasonableness of its redundancy action. This application was opposed by the Applicant and was ultimately refused by the Senior Member on 31 July 2025.

Chapter 6: Hearing Scene: Ultimate Showdown of Evidence and Logic

Process Reconstruction: Live Restoration

The conciliation/arbitration hearing, held in person on 17 July 2025, served as the arena for the ultimate showdown of evidence and logic. With the Applicant, Mr Pashtoonyar Ahmadi, present and represented by Mr Morgan of counsel, and the Respondent, NEV, represented by Ms Goodman of counsel, the proceedings focused intently on the section 11A defence. The narrowing of issues prior to the hearing meant that the central dispute revolved around the causation of the psychological injury and the reasonableness of the Respondent’s actions. No application was made for oral evidence or cross-examination, placing significant emphasis on the documentary evidence, including detailed statements from both parties and various medical reports.

Core Evidence Confrontation

The confrontation of core evidence was primarily observed through the competing narratives presented in the affidavits and medical reports. The Applicant’s detailed accounts of bullying, harassment, and discrimination were met with denials from the Respondent’s witnesses, who collectively asserted that no such conduct occurred or was reported. The medical evidence further complicated this, with some reports (e.g., Ms Farooq, Dr Singh, Dr Anand for the Applicant) strongly supporting a direct link between workplace stressors/redundancy and the psychological injury, while others (e.g., GP records before June 2023, Dr D’Abrera for the Respondent) highlighted the Applicant’s pre-existing vulnerabilities and other life stressors as potential causative factors. The Respondent’s reliance on the Applicant’s alleged cognitive deficits during Dr D’Abrera’s assessment also played a significant role, with Dr D’Abrera questioning the Applicant’s reliability.

Judicial Reasoning

The Senior Member, exercising an objective and rigorous third-party perspective, carefully weighed the voluminous evidence. The Court acknowledged the Applicant’s pre-existing mental health history, as consistently noted in his clinical records. However, the critical period for causation was identified as the time leading up to and including the retrenchment.

The Court found that the Applicant’s injury was predominantly caused by the Respondent’s action with respect to retrenchment. This finding was supported by Dr D’Abrera’s opinion.

“Having reviewed the evidence, I accept Dr D’Abrera’s opinion. I am satisfied that the applicant’s injury was predominantly caused by the respondent’s action with respect to retrenchment.”

This statement was determinative on the first limb of the section 11A defence, placing the burden on the Respondent to then prove the reasonableness of its actions. Despite the Respondent’s expert indicating possible exaggerations of symptoms and personality vulnerabilities, the Court ultimately accepted the expert opinion linking the injury predominantly to the retrenchment.

On the reasonableness of the Respondent’s action, the Court applied an objective test, weighing all relevant factors, including fairness.

“the question of reasonableness is one of fact, weighing all the relevant factors. That test is less demanding than the test of necessity, but more demanding than the test of convenience. The test of ‘reasonableness’ is objective and must weigh the rights of the employees against the object of the employment. Whether an action is reasonable should be attended, in all the circumstances, by questions of fairness.”

The Court meticulously examined the process of redundancy, noting the Applicant’s long tenure (over 14 years) and senior position. The lack of prior notice for the redundancy meeting, the denial of a support person, the absence of an opportunity to consult or make submissions, and the abrupt manner of termination (“you’re out”) were heavily weighted against the Respondent. The Court highlighted that the Respondent failed to provide evidence that their own HR policies, designed for fairness, were actually followed.

The Court ultimately concluded that the Respondent’s action with respect to retrenchment was not reasonable.

“The respondent’s evidence falls far short of establishing that its action with respect to the applicant’s retrenchment was reasonable. When ‘questions of fairness’ are considered, the respondent has failed to meet its onus in this regard.”

This conclusion directly negated the Respondent’s section 11A defence, thereby entitling the Applicant to compensation.

Chapter 7: Final Judgment of the Court

The Commission determined:
1. The Respondent is to pay to the Applicant weekly benefits compensation as follows:
(a) from 27 March 2024 to 26 June 2024, pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, at the rate of $2,301.85 per week; and
(b) from 27 June 2024 to date and continuing, pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, at the rate of $1,938.40 per week.
2. The Respondent is to pay the Applicant’s medical and related expenses, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

Chapter 8: In-depth Analysis of the Judgment: How Law and Evidence Lay the Foundation for Victory

Special Analysis:

This case holds significant jurisprudential value, particularly in its application of section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 concerning psychological injuries arising from employer actions like retrenchment. The Senior Member’s rigorous assessment of “reasonableness” in the context of procedural fairness for a long-serving employee provides a strong precedent. The unusual aspect of the Respondent’s application to reopen proceedings after submissions were concluded and the decision reserved, and its firm refusal by the Commission, underscores the importance of finality in litigation and the comprehensive presentation of evidence within established procedural timelines. This case serves as a critical reminder to employers of the high bar for establishing the reasonableness limb of the section 11A defence, especially when dealing with long-tenured employees.

Judgment Points:

1. Strict Scrutiny of Redundancy Process: The Commission did not merely accept the Respondent’s assertion of a “proper redundancy.” It conducted a detailed examination of the process, scrutinising elements like notice, opportunity for consultation, and provision of support.
2. Weight of Fairness in Reasonableness: The judgment implicitly highlights that procedural fairness and consideration for the employee’s rights are integral to the “reasonableness” test under section 11A, even when a legitimate business reason for redundancy exists.
3. Refusal to Reopen: The Commission’s firm refusal to allow the Respondent to adduce further evidence post-hearing reinforces principles of due process and finality, signalling that parties are expected to present their full case in a timely manner.

Legal Basis:

The primary legal basis for the determination was section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This section provides a defence to employers for psychological injuries if the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the employer with respect to retrenchment or dismissal. The Court also referred to principles of causation established in cases such as Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, and the interpretation of “reasonableness” from Irwin v Director General of Education and Northern New South Wales Local Health Network v Heggie.

Evidence Chain:

The Court constructed its conclusion by first relying on the medical evidence to establish the predominant cause of the injury, then applying the factual evidence to assess the reasonableness of the employer’s actions.
* Causation: The Court accepted Dr D’Abrera’s opinion, despite the Applicant’s pre-existing conditions and other stressors, that the psychological injury was predominantly caused by the Respondent’s action with respect to retrenchment. This involved weighing the impact of the specific workplace events leading to the redundancy against other potential causes.
* Reasonableness: The factual evidence presented by both parties was critical. The Applicant’s allegations of abruptness, lack of consultation, denial of a support person, and the overall humiliating manner of dismissal, while partly disputed, were not sufficiently rebutted by the Respondent’s evidence to demonstrate reasonableness. The absence of documentation confirming adherence to proper HR processes and the HR professional’s (Ms Hillen) inability to confirm specific procedural steps were pivotal.

Judicial Original Quotation:

On Causation (accepting Dr D’Abrera’s opinion):

“Having reviewed the evidence, I accept Dr D’Abrera’s opinion. I am satisfied that the applicant’s injury was predominantly caused by the respondent’s action with respect to retrenchment.”
Analysis: This statement directly addresses the first limb of the section 11A defence, establishing the causal link between the employer’s action and the psychological injury. It highlights the Court’s reliance on expert medical opinion to resolve complex causal questions in psychological injury claims.

On Reasonableness (applying legal principles to the facts):

“The respondent’s evidence falls far short of establishing that its action with respect to the applicant’s retrenchment was reasonable. When ‘questions of fairness’ are considered, the respondent has failed to meet its onus in this regard.”
Analysis: This is the decisive conclusion on the second limb of the defence. It demonstrates the Court’s application of the objective “reasonableness” test, emphasising that the manner of retrenchment was not fair, thus negating the Respondent’s defence under section 11A.

Analysis of the Losing Party’s Failure:

The Respondent’s failure primarily stemmed from its inability to establish that its actions regarding the Applicant’s retrenchment were “reasonable” in all the circumstances. Despite having internal HR policies and receiving “tools and information” from an HR consultant (Ms Hillen), the Respondent failed to adduce sufficient evidence that these procedures were actually followed with respect to the Applicant. The lack of prior notice for the redundancy meeting, the absence of an offered support person, no opportunity for consultation or submissions, and the abrupt termination were critical failures in demonstrating fairness. Furthermore, the Respondent’s delayed attempt to adduce further evidence after the hearing was concluded and decision reserved demonstrated a lack of diligence and adherence to procedural timelines, which the Commission firmly rejected. This ultimately undermined its ability to satisfy the stringent requirements of section 11A.

Implications
1. Procedural Fairness is Paramount: Even with a legitimate business reason for redundancy, employers must ensure the process is procedurally fair and respectful to employees.
2. Documentation is Key: Thorough documentation of all steps taken during a redundancy process is crucial for employers to successfully defend claims under section 11A.
3. Timeliness in Litigation: The case highlights the importance of presenting all evidence and arguments within the prescribed timelines, as attempts to introduce new material late in the proceedings are likely to be refused.
4. Weighing Employee Rights: The “reasonableness” test requires employers to actively weigh an employee’s rights and welfare against the business’s objectives, particularly for long-serving staff.
5. Expert Medical Evidence: In psychological injury claims, expert medical evidence on causation is vital, and its accuracy and direct relevance to workplace stressors are subject to close scrutiny.

Q&A Session

Q1: What does “wholly or predominantly caused” mean in this context?
A1: In Australian workers compensation law, “wholly or predominantly caused” means that the employer’s action must be the main or principal cause of the psychological injury. It doesn’t have to be the sole cause, but it must be the most significant one when considering all contributing factors. The Court determines this by weighing the evidence, including medical opinions and factual accounts of events.

Q2: What aspects of the redundancy process did the Court find unreasonable in this case?
A2: The Court found several aspects of the Respondent’s redundancy process unreasonable. These included providing no prior notice of the redundancy meeting, denying the Applicant an opportunity to have a support person present, offering no chance for consultation or submissions, and abruptly terminating his employment without allowing him to work out a notice period. These elements contributed to a finding that the process lacked fairness.

Q3: Can an employer introduce new evidence after a hearing has concluded?
A3: Generally, no. As demonstrated in this case, Australian courts and tribunals place a strong emphasis on the finality of litigation and the efficient resolution of disputes. Once a hearing has concluded and a decision reserved, an application to reopen proceedings to introduce new evidence will typically be refused, unless there are exceptional circumstances or it can be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained earlier with reasonable diligence.

Appendix: Reference for Comparable Case Judgments and Practical Guidelines

1. Practical Positioning of This Case

Case Subtype: Workers Compensation – Psychological Injury due to Employer Action (Retrenchment/Dismissal)
Judgment Nature Definition: Final Judgment

2. Self-examination of Core Statutory Elements

Core Test (Section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987):
No compensation is payable for 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.
* Wholly or predominantly caused: This requires assessing whether the employer’s action was the main or principal cause of the psychological injury. Medical evidence is typically crucial here to distinguish the causal contribution of employer actions from other potential stressors or pre-existing conditions.
* Reasonable action: The action must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances. This test considers fairness and proportionality, balancing the employer’s legitimate business needs against the employee’s rights. It is not sufficient for the employer merely to have genuinely believed the action was reasonable; it must withstand objective scrutiny. Procedural fairness (e.g., proper notice, opportunity to respond, support person) is a significant factor in assessing reasonableness.
* Action taken or proposed to be taken with respect to retrenchment or dismissal: The specific category of employer action must fall within the enumerated list in section 11A(1). The conduct causing the injury must directly relate to the process or decision of retrenchment or dismissal itself.

3. Equitable Remedies and Alternative Claims

If statutory law is inapplicable, parties can consider equitable principles or other common law doctrines.
* Promissory / Proprietary Estoppel:
* Representation/Promise: Did the employer make a clear and unequivocal promise or representation regarding job security or future entitlements (e.g., “you will always have a job here,” “your redundancy payout will be X”)?
* Detrimental Reliance: Did the employee act to their detriment in reliance on that promise (e.g., foregoing other job opportunities, making significant life decisions)?
* Unconscionability: Would it be unconscionable for the employer to renege on that promise?
* Result Reference: Even without a formal contract, Equity may “estop” the employer from going back on their word, potentially leading to compensation or specific performance if applicable. This is a relatively high risk path in employment matters but offers an alternative for certain types of unfulfilled assurances.
* Unjust Enrichment / Constructive Trust:
* Benefit at Expense: Has the employer received a benefit (e.g., exceptional work, intellectual property) at the employee’s expense (e.g., underpaid for additional duties, uncompensated overtime)? Is it against conscience for them to retain that benefit without fair compensation?
* Result Reference: The Court may order restitution of the benefit (e.g., payment for services) or, in rare cases involving specific property, declare that the employee holds a beneficial interest in an asset via a Constructive Trust. This is a very high risk path for typical employment claims but could apply in unique circumstances where an employee’s efforts directly resulted in a specific, identifiable benefit to the employer without adequate compensation.
* Procedural Fairness (Judicial Review):
* Natural Justice: Did the employer, in making the redundancy decision, afford the employee natural justice? This involves assessing whether there was an opportunity to be heard, a fair hearing, and an absence of apparent bias. While section 11A directly addresses reasonableness, grounds for judicial review (e.g., procedural unfairness by a public body or a decision that affects a statutory right) might be pursued in administrative or quasi-judicial contexts if a statutory right or public function is involved.
* Result Reference: If procedural unfairness is established, the decision may be quashed or remitted for reconsideration, though this often does not lead directly to compensation for injury but rather a review of the decision-making process. This is a moderate risk approach, dependent on the nature of the employer (public vs. private) and the decision-making context.
* Ancillary Claims (General Protections):
* Adverse Action: If an Unfair Dismissal claim or a s 11A defence fails, a General Protections claim under the Fair Work Act 2009 might be considered. This would involve arguing that adverse action (e.g., dismissal) was taken against the employee because they exercised a workplace right (e.g., making a complaint, taking sick leave, refusing unsafe work).
* Reverse Onus of Proof: A key advantage here is the reverse onus of proof, meaning the employer must prove that the adverse action was not taken for a prohibited reason.
* Result Reference: This offers a feasible alternative path, as the focus shifts from the reasonableness of the action to the motive behind it, with a relatively lower evidentiary burden on the employee regarding the causal link. This is a moderate to low risk approach, as it’s a common alternative.

4. Access Thresholds and Exceptional Circumstances

• Regular Thresholds:
  • Deemed Date of Injury: The deemed date of injury for psychological claims is usually when the worker first becomes incapacitated as a result of the injury, or the date of the last exposure to the employment condition alleged to have given rise to the injury. In this case, the deemed date of injury was 26 March 2024 (the date of the redundancy meeting).
  • Notice of Injury (s 254 of the 1998 Act): Notice must be given to the employer within six months of the injury becoming apparent.
  • Making a Claim (s 261 of the 1998 Act): A claim for compensation must be made within three years after the date of injury.
  • Section 11A Threshold: The injury must be wholly or predominantly caused by the employer’s action, and that action must be reasonable. Both limbs must be satisfied for the defence to succeed.
• Exceptional Channels (Crucial):
  • Late Notice/Claim (ss 254(4) and 261(4) of the 1998 Act): While strict timeframes apply, exemptions may be available if the failure to give notice or make a claim was due to “ignorance, mistake, or absence from the State,” or a “reasonable cause,” and the employer is not prejudiced. This case established that the Respondent did not dispute notice or claim timeframes, indicating the Applicant likely satisfied these or an exception applied.
  • Challenging “Reasonableness”: Even if the underlying business decision (e.g., restructure, automation) is legitimate, the manner in which it is carried out can be challenged as unreasonable. This case highlights that procedural fairness (e.g., notice of meeting, opportunity to be heard, offer of support person, dignity in exit process) is crucial. A failure in these aspects can render an otherwise legitimate action unreasonable.
  • Suggestion: Do not abandon a potential claim simply because you do not meet the standard time or conditions, or if the employer claims a legitimate business reason for their actions. Carefully compare your circumstances against the exceptions, particularly focusing on procedural fairness and the impact of the employer’s conduct during the process, as they are often the key to successfully filing a case.

5. Guidelines for Judicial and Legal Citation

• Citation Angle: It is recommended to cite this case in legal submissions or debates involving psychological injury claims, particularly those where employers rely on the section 11A defence regarding retrenchment or dismissal. It is especially relevant when challenging the “reasonableness” limb of this defence, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and the manner of termination.
• Citation Method:
  • As Positive Support: When your matter involves an employer’s abrupt termination of a long-serving employee without proper notice, support, or consultation, citing Ahmadi v New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 402 can strengthen your argument that the employer’s action was not reasonable.
  • As a Distinguishing Reference: If the opposing party cites this case (e.g., to argue that a psychological injury caused by dismissal falls under s 11A), you should emphasize the unique aspects of the current matter where the employer did follow reasonable procedures, or where the employee’s injury was predominantly caused by other factors, to argue that this precedent (particularly its finding on unreasonableness) is not applicable.
  • Anonymisation Rule: When citing, strictly use procedural titles such as “the Applicant” and “the Respondent”.

Conclusion

This authentic judgment from the New South Wales Personal Injury Commission underscores the critical importance of procedural fairness in employer actions, especially concerning retrenchment or dismissal. Even when an employer can demonstrate a legitimate business reason for a redundancy that predominantly causes a psychological injury, failure to act reasonably in executing that action will negate the section 11A defence and render the employer liable for compensation. The case serves as a powerful reminder that while business viability is paramount, it must be balanced with the inherent rights and dignity of employees.

Everyone needs to understand the law and see the world through the lens of law. The in-depth analysis of this authentic judgment is intended to help everyone gradually establish a new legal mindset: True self-protection stems from the early understanding and mastery of legal rules.

Disclaimer
This article is based on the study and analysis of the public judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Ahmadi v New Evolution Ventures Australia Pty Ltd), aimed at promoting legal research and public understanding. The citation of relevant judgment content is limited to the scope of fair dealing for the purposes of legal research, comment, and information sharing.
The analysis, structural arrangement, and expression of views contained in this article are the original content of the author, and the copyright belongs to the author and this platform. This article does not constitute legal advice, nor should it be regarded as legal advice for any specific situation.

---

Original Case File:

👉 Can’t see the full document?
Click here to download the original judgment document.