Kumar v Campbelltown City Council [2026] NSWPIC 45

Link to decision Link to video

Key takeaways

In order for an incapacity for work to be compensable, there must be a clear causal relationship between the work injury and the incapacity.

If it is able to be shown that the causal chain has been broken, compensation will not be payable.

Brief facts

The worker suffered a psychological injury due to bullying and harassment during his employment with Campbelltown City Council (the Respondent). He alleged his symptoms developed in July 2023 and first claimed compensation on 13 December 2023. The Respondent disputed liability on the basis that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken with respect to discipline and dismissal under s11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act).

Despite his symptoms, the worker continued working until 30 May 2024. He also underwent psychological treatment. In addition, it was noted that the worker had a history of substance use prior to the workplace events.

On 30 May 2024, the worker heard a rumour that the main perpetrator of his workplace bullying was returning to work. He panicked, went to a friend’s house after work, began drinking and blacked out. He returned home and assaulted his wife, resulting in her hospitalisation for eight days.

The worker was incarcerated from 30 May 2024 until 28 February 2025. There were limited details regarding the circumstances of the worker’s incarceration, although he alleged he was assaulted during his stay in gaol and developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result.

In March 2025, following his release from gaol, the worker made a further claim for compensation in respect of his alleged injury. The insurer disputed liability on a number of grounds, including sections 4(b), 11A and 14(2) of the 1987 Act and sections 254 and 261 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act).

In September 2025, the worker commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (PIC) seeking weekly compensation in respect of his psychological injury from 30 May 2024 to date and continuing.

Judgment

After reviewing the evidence, Member Homan was satisfied that the worker suffered a psychological injury caused by workplace bullying and harassment, and that his employment was the main contributing factor under s4(b) of the 1987 Act. She did not find sufficient evidence to support the Respondent’s defences under s11A(1) or 14(2).

Turning to the claim for weekly compensation, the Member noted the worker continued working until 30 May 2024 despite his symptoms, and there was no persuasive evidence of incapacity before that date. She did not accept the worker as a reliable historian, noting he failed to disclose his prior psychological, drug and alcohol history to treating and medico-legal providers. As a result, she gave little weight to the opinions of the worker’s independent medical examiner or treating specialist.

The Member accepted that the worker’s experiences in gaol gave rise to a separate and distinct diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder, and agreed with the Respondent’s independent medical examiner that it was difficult to distinguish between depressive symptoms from the work injury and those arising from the gaol-related condition.

Ultimately, the Member found the worker had not proven that any incapacity after 30 May 2024 resulted from his compensable psychological injury, and entered an award in favour of the Respondent.

Implications

This decision highlights the importance of identifying and investigating possible intervening events that may affect both injury and incapacity.

Where a significant post-injury event gives rise to a new diagnosis or provides an alternative explanation for incapacity, the causal link between the compensable injury and any claimed incapacity may be broken.

Where there is an intervening event, insurers should undertake thorough investigations, including obtaining relevant clinical records and an independent medical opinion, to properly assess whether the event impacts the causal chain.