17 Jan 2011
The District Court found the interpretive issue whether "outcome" includes perpetuating causes is a bona fide question of law capable of serious argument and granted leave to appeal to the High Court despite factual findings by the primary judge, because the matter raises a mixed question involving statutory interpretation that the High Court should determine.
1 Apr 2004
The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility findings favoring the employer, accepted the expert evidence that DSM‑IV A(1) was not met on the facts, found the appellant did not suffer PTSD and that employment did not materially contribute to his depressive illness; appeal dismissed.
6 Oct 2000
The Court found the second respondent's review application valid; on the merits the appellant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that cannabis dependency existed to a material extent at the end of employment (s7(1)(b)) and therefore failed s7(1) causation requirements; additionally the diagnosed PTSD was related to non-physical stress and is excluded by s7(4); therefore no compensable personal injury by gradual process arising out of employment was established and the appeal is dismissed.