Background
Ms. Lisa Holman worked as a driver at a childcare centre in Queensland. In May 2021, she sustained a psychiatric injury due to bullying and harassment constituting unreasonable management action. Her workers’ compensation claim was initially rejected in July 2021 but was later accepted on 11 August 2023, with the insurer satisfied that unreasonable management action was the more significant factor. The accepted condition was panic disorder.
In May 2025, WorkCover referred Ms. Holman’s matter to a General Medical Assessment Tribunal – Psychiatric to assess her ongoing work capacity and degree of permanent impairment. The Tribunal determined she had partial incapacity for work and assessed her permanent impairment at 5 per cent, diagnosing her condition as adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. WorkCover offered a lump sum compensation payment of $19,938.50. When Ms. Holman deferred this offer on 26 May 2025, WorkCover terminated her ongoing compensation payments and medical expenses on 16 June 2025.
Ms. Holman filed an originating application in the Supreme Court seeking to set aside the Tribunal decision and the subsequent termination of benefits, along with various other decisions by WorkCover concerning rehabilitation, wage calculations, and travel expenses. She raised multiple grounds of challenge, including allegations that the Tribunal referral was invalid, that natural justice was breached, that relevant documents were omitted and irrelevant documents included, and that the Tribunal’s reasons were insufficient.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Smith dismissed Ms. Holman’s application entirely, finding no grounds established to set aside the Tribunal decision or any of the related decisions by WorkCover. The Court held that the referral to the Tribunal was validly made under sections 500, 502, and 505 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld). Although the referral form was not identical to the approved form, the Court found it was in substantial compliance with the mandatory form requirement, which is sufficient under section 48A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld).
On procedural fairness, the Court distinguished between the referral stage and the Tribunal hearing stage. The Court held that natural justice principles did not apply to WorkCover’s decision to make the referral itself, relying on the principle that where a statutory scheme provides a subsequent right to be heard before a tribunal, there is no requirement to accord procedural fairness at an earlier administrative stage. However, procedural fairness was fully accorded at the Tribunal hearing itself, where Ms. Holman had the opportunity to appear and be heard, and all relevant documents under section 499 of the Act were provided.
The Court also held that the allegation of missing relevant documents was not made out. Section 500A requires the insurer to provide “all relevant documents” to the tribunal, and the Court found that comprehensive medical reports, worker statements, employer information, and decision reasons were all provided. Ms. Holman had further opportunity to submit additional documentation at the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal properly exercised its jurisdiction by considering all medical evidence and determining its own diagnosis (adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood) based on that evidence, which was entitled to do so. The Tribunal’s reasons were adequate and explained its findings on the worker’s incapacity and impairment assessment.
Key Takeaways
- Tribunal decisions on medical matters are final under section 515 of the WCRA and cannot be questioned in court except through judicial review; the Supreme Court’s power to grant declaratory relief under the Civil Procedures Act does not automatically override this finality clause.
- Substantial compliance with prescribed statutory forms is sufficient; strict compliance is not required under section 48A of the Acts Interpretation Act.
- Natural justice applies at the tribunal hearing stage, not at the preliminary referral stage, where a statutory scheme provides a right to be heard before a tribunal.
- Tribunals have authority to form their own medical diagnoses and assessments based on all available medical evidence, rather than being bound by the insurer’s characterization in the referral.
- The QIRC is the specialist tribunal with jurisdiction to hear appeals of insurer decisions on wages, rehabilitation, and travel expenses; the Supreme Court is not the appropriate forum for such disputes.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of judicial review available to workers in Queensland challenging General Medical Assessment Tribunal decisions and affirms the finality of such decisions. It establishes that absent jurisdictional error, natural justice breach at the tribunal hearing itself, or failure to consider relevant documents, workers cannot successfully challenge tribunal findings in the Supreme Court. The decision reinforces that the statutory scheme for workers’ compensation disputes allocates specialist jurisdiction to the QIRC for wage and rehabilitation matters, and to the tribunals themselves for medical assessments, with limited appellate review available.
The decision is significant for its holding that compliance with natural justice principles applies at the tribunal hearing stage, not at the administrative referral stage, and that insurers have broad discretion in referring matters and determining which documents to provide (subject only to the requirement to provide all “relevant documents” as defined by statute). This gives insurers considerable procedural latitude while preserving workers’ rights to be heard and have their case fairly presented before the tribunal itself. The case also demonstrates that courts will not second-guess tribunal findings on medical evidence or diagnoses, provided the tribunal has considered the materials before it and given adequate reasons.