Federal Court of Australia

Lockett v Comcare [2026] FCA 1014

ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.    The Notice of Objection to Competency filed by the respondent on 11 February 2026 is upheld.

2.    The Amended Originating Application for Judicial Review accepted for filing on 2 December 2025 is summarily dismissed pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

3.    The applicant pay the costs of the respondent, such costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COLLIER J:

1    Before the Court are:

    a Notice of Objection to Competency filed by the respondent, Comcare, on 11 February 2026; and

    an Interlocutory Application for Summary Dismissal (Summary Dismissal Application) also filed by Comcare on 11 February 2026.

2    Both the Notice of Objection to Competency and the Summary Dismissal Application relate to an Originating Application for Judicial Review lodged for filing on 1 July 2025 (and accepted for filing on 3 July 2025), as amended on 21 November 2025 and further amended on 10 February 2026 (Originating Application). In the Originating Application, Mr Lockett sought review of a decision of Comcare dated 4 June 2025, described in the Originating Application (as amended and lodged for filing on 21 November 2025) as the “Second Reconsideration decision which reopened, replaced, and superseded all earlier decisions, including the 24 January 2025 ART decision”. Mr Lockett stated that the relevant 4 June 2025 Comcare decision, and the “connected decisions of 5 May 2025 and 7 May 2025”, related to the “Brett Moyes original rejection decision of 4 September 2023”.

3    I note, however, that there were two related decisions of Comcare made on 4 June 2025. I will return to this issue later in these reasons.

4    It is convenient to briefly summarise the background facts before turning to the proceedings before the Court.

BACKGROUND

5    Relevant background facts can be found in material filed in these proceedings, in particular the Respondent’s Chronology filed by Comcare on 5 November 2025. In summary:

    On 15 November 2021, Mr Lockett commenced employment with the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) as an APSS Internal Review Officer. This role required Mr Lockett to review disability support plans for participants who had been accepted into the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS).

    On 10 October 2022, Mr Lockett lodged a workers’ compensation claim (Claim 1341186/1 2022 AD) in respect of psychological stress which he claimed to have sustained in the first half of 2022 as a result of harassment and bullying at work.

    On 9 December 2022, Comcare issued a determination accepting liability to pay compensation pursuant to s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act) for an “adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features” sustained on 31 May 2022 in respect of Claim 1341186/1 2022 AD. This reviewable decision was affirmed by Comcare on 9 February 2023.

    On 7 July 2023, Mr Lockett lodged:

•    A Notification of Reported Condition in respect of “generalised anxiety with stress. Work related stress. Workstress (sic) feels being picked on and victimised. Currently my Head (Brain), Neck, Jaw and Shoulders”. He stated that he first noticed the condition on 1 April 2022.

•    A workers’ compensation claim in respect of “Generalised Anxiety with Stress. Work Related Stress” affecting his “Head (Brain), Shoulders, Neck, Jaw”, which Mr Lockett claimed he sustained as a result of “a call from Team Leader in March that was aggressive and abusive…” (Claim 1341186/2 2023 AD).

    On 4 September 2023, Comcare issued a determination denying liability to pay compensation in respect of Claim 1341186/2 2023 AD. This determination was affirmed by a decision of 19 October 2023. The decision of 19 October 2023 was the subject of an application to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which on 24 January 2025 (as the Administrative Review Tribunal) affirmed the decision of 19 October 2023.

    On 27 March 2025, Mr Lockett lodged a workers’ compensation claim referable to conduct he claimed occurred on 28 March 2023 and in May and June 2023 (Claim 1341186/3 2023 conditions). On 4 April 2025 Comcare denied liability to pay compensation for “temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction and muscle pain and aches around the neck and trapezius muscles” in respect of Claim 1341186/3 2023 conditions (4 April 2025 decision).

    On 5 May 2025, Comcare issued a determination, pursuant to s 16 of the SRC Act, which accepted liability to pay compensation for general practitioner and psychology consultations up until 7 May 2025, in respect of an “adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features” sustained on 31 May 2022 and relating to Claim 1341186/1 2022 AD (5 May 2025 decision).

    On 7 May 2025, Comcare issued a determination, pursuant to s 16 of the SRC Act, which found that there was no present liability to pay compensation for medical expenses in respect of an “adjustment reaction with mixed emotional features” sustained on 31 May 2022 and relating to Claim 1341186/1 2022 AD (7 May 2025 decision).

    On 4 June 2025, Comcare issued two decisions, namely:

•    a decision affirming the 5 May 2025 decision and the 7 May 2025 decision (First June 2025 decision); and

•    a decision affirming the 4 April 2025 decision (Second June 2025 decision).

6    The First June 2025 decision was in the following terms:

4 June 2025

Claim reference: 1341186/1

Date of Injury: 31 May 2022

Reconsideration reference number: 74019528 and 74127562

…

Reconsideration of determination

You have requested that Comcare reconsider our determinations dated 5 May 2025 and 7 May 2025, which accepted liability for general practitioner and psychology consultations up to 7 May 2025 and declined present liability for medical expenses.

I have now completed my reconsideration and have decided to affirm these determinations.

The reasons for my decision are detailed below, and the relevant information and legislation that I considered in making my decision are listed in the attachment to this letter.

Background

You have an accepted claim for an ‘adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood’ (your 2022 compensable condition), deemed to have been sustained on 31 May 2022. Your condition was attributed to work stress, pressure of the tasks provided and a lack of support.

On 7 April 2025, Comcare advised you of the intention to decline present liability for medical treatment, on the basis that your employment was no longer a significant contributing factor for your present condition. You were given the opportunity to provide further information, with the proposed determination to be considered on 7 May 2025.

On 5 May 2025, Comcare accepted liability for general practitioner consultations and psychology consultations up to 7 May 2025.

On 7 May 2025, Comcare declined present liability for medical expenses in relation to your 2022 compensable condition on the basis that you no longer experience the effects of this condition.

On 7 May 2025 and 13 May 2025, you sent correspondence in response to the determination dated 7 May 2025, Relevantly, you say:

•    The statements provided to Dr Ravindra Mutha (psychiatrist) are unproven and the work performance issues raised by the National Disability Insurance Agency (the NDIA) have been proven to be false by Freedom of Information (FOI) records you have obtained from the NDIA

•    You agree with Dr Mutha that your current psychological condition is a recurrence of a prior condition, from which you had recovered towards the end of 2022

•    You reject Dr Mutha’s report that you have personality vulnerabilities which are indicative of narcissistic traits. However, you agree with his opinion that you require further psychological treatment as you have not recovered from your 2023 psychological condition.

On 13 May 2025, you requested a reconsideration of the determination dated 5 May 2025. You say:

•    You have only completed three of the six approved psychology treatment sessions.

•    You would like to complete the three remaining psychology sessions and have Comcare request an updated ‘psychological status’ report from Ms Saudah Musson-Seedat (psychologist).

•    You refer to your version of the incident on 28 March 2023 and incidents in May and June 2023 with Ms Natalie Wright (team leader). You reject that you were ever performance counselled between November 2022 and May 2023 and maintain that you were untrained.

•    The statements provided to Dr Mutha are unproven and the work performance issues raised by the NDIA have been proven to be false by FOI records you have obtained from the NDIA.

•    You agree with Dr Mutha that your current psychological condition is a recurrence of a prior condition from which you had recovered towards the end of 2022.

•    You reject Dr Mutha’s report that you have personality vulnerabilities which are indicative of narcissistic traits. However, you agree with his opinion that you require further psychological treatment as you have not recovered from your 2023 psychological condition.

Following a telephone conversation on 16 May 2025, you confirmed that you were also seeking a reconsideration of the determination dated 7 May 2025.

On 15 May 2025, the NDIA was provided an opportunity to respond to the request. On 20 May 2025, the NDIA advise they have no further information or comment to provide.

What do I need to decide in this decision?

The issues I need to decide are:

a)     Whether you continue to experience the effects of your 2022 compensable condition.

b)     If so, whether you continue to require reasonable medical treatment in relation to your 2022 compensable condition.

a)     Whether you continue to experience the effects of your 2022 compensable condition

I find that you do not continue to experience the effects of your 2022 compensable condition.

My finding is based on the following key points:

•    Dr Brendan Smith (psychiatrist), in his report dated 21 November 2022, states that:

•    You have an adjustment disorder with anxious and depressed mood which has largely resolved, if not remitted, and that you should return to your mental health baseline shortly.

•    You have basically fully recovered from this condition.

•    There is gap in psychological treatment from Ms Musson-Seedat between 16 December 2022 and 6 April 2023. Treatment recommenced following your return to work and after you sustained new adjustment disorder in March 2023.

•    Dr Mutha, in his report dated 11 October 2023, states that:

•    You reported that your mental health declined in March 2023 after Ms Wright criticised you and again in May 2023, when you were unfairly denied a pay rise.

•    You sustained an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood in 2023 and this was a reoccurrence of an adjustment disorder.

•    Dr Mutha, in his supplementary report dated 13 March 2024, states that:

•    You have an adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, caused by your interactions with Ms Wright in March 2023 and May 2023.

•    You had recovered from symptoms of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood towards the end of 2022 and so your current condition is a reoccurrence of your prior adjustment disorder.

You have not provided any new medical evidence that would cause me to find that you do continue to experience the effects of your 2022 compensable condition.

I note that the Administrative Review Tribunal (the ART), in its decision dated 24 January 2025, proceeded on the basis that your current psychological condition was not a continuation of your 2022 compensable condition. In making this finding, the ART relied upon the medical opinions expressed by Dr Smith and Dr Mutha, along [with] a medical certificate dated 24 November 2022 that cleared you for normal work duties from 5 December 2022.

b)     Whether you continue to require reasonable medical treatment in relation to your 2022 compensable condition

As I find that you no longer experience the effects of your 2022 compensable condition, it follows that you do not require medical treatment in relation to your 2022 compensable condition.

As detailed above, you have been diagnosed with ‘a reoccurrence of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood’, which occurred in 2023 and is a separate psychological condition to your 2022 compensable condition. Your 2022 compensable condition resolved in late 2022.

Therefore, any medical treatment you are currently obtaining in relation to psychological symptoms is being obtained in relation to your reoccurrence of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood which occurred in 2023 and not your 2022 compensable condition. I note the ART has affirmed that Comcare is not liable for the 2023 condition on claim 1341186/2.

However, noting that the denial of present liability did not occur until 7 May 2025, I find that is reasonable for you to obtain general practitioner consultations and psychology sessions until this date.

Decision

I affirm the determination dated 7 May 2025 and decline no present liability for medical expenses in relation to your 2022 compensable condition under section 16 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).

I also affirm the determination dated 5 May 2025 and accept liability for general practitioner consultations and psychology consultations up to 7 May 2025 under section 16 of the SRC Act.

7    The Second June 2025 decision was in the following terms:

4 June 2025

Claim reference: 1341186/3

Claimed date of Injury: 28 March 2023

Reconsideration reference number: 741010983

…

Reconsideration of determination

You have requested that Comcare reconsider our determination dated 4 April 2025, which declined liability for ‘temporomandibular joint (TMJ) dysfunction and muscle pain and aches around the neck and trapezius muscles’.

I have now completed my reconsideration and have decided to affirm the determination.

The reasons for my decision are detailed below, and the relevant information and legislation that I considered in making my decision are listed in the attachment to this letter.

Background

Claim 1341186/2

On 7 July 2023, you submitted a claim for workers’ compensation in respect of a psychological condition affecting your head (brain), shoulders, neck and jaw. You attribute this condition to a call from your team leader in March 2023. This claim was declined by Comcare.

On 24 January 2025, the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) found that interactions between yourself and Ms Natalie Wright (your team leader) on 28 March 2023, over the period 8 to 11 May 2023 and on 6 June 2023, were reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner’ in respect of your employment and therefore, the denial of your claim was affirmed.

Claim 1341186/3

You submitted a claim for compensation dated 27 March 2025 for physical injuries to your jaw, head, neck and shoulders. You attribute the conditions to being verbally attacked on 28 March 2023, with further attacks occurring in May and June 2023. You advise you first noticed your conditions and first sought medical treatment for your physical injuries on 28 March 2023.

On 4 April 2025, Comcare declined liability for TMJ dysfunction and muscle pain and aches around the neck and trapezius muscles on the basis that your physical injuries did not arise out of or in the course of your employment and they were otherwise sustained as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of your employment.

On 11 May 2025, you requested a reconsideration of the determination, stating:

•    Your injuries are not psychological but physical.

•    Your injuries occurred from a workplace issue that caused stress and led to physical injuries in your head (brain), jaw, neck and shoulders.

•    The reasonable administrative actions have been proven to be incorrect and were not the reason for your physical injuries.

You provided further emails regarding your request, submitting further evidence including:

•    A report dated 28 July 2023 from Dr Edward Lau (general practitioner).

•    A clinical note from a dentist dated 21 June 2023.

•    Reports from Ms Saudah Musson-Seedat (psychologist) dated 27 June 2023, 26 September 2023 and 30 November 2023.

•    Documents produced by the National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) under Freedom of Information (FOI).

On 13 May 2024, the NDIA was provided an opportunity to respond to the request however a response has not been received as at the date of my decision.

What do I need to decide in this reconsideration?

The issues I need to decide are:

a)     Whether you have sustained a condition, or an aggravation of a condition.

b)     If so, whether your condition was significantly contributed to by your employment.

c)     If so, whether your condition was the result of reasonable administration action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of your employment.

a)     Whether you have sustained a condition or an aggravation of a condition

I find that you have sustained a condition, which is a temporary aggravation of TMJ dysfunction.

My finding is based on the following key points:

•    Dr Edward Lau (general practitioner) stated in a report dated 28 July 2023 that you have developed TMJ dysfunction and muscular pain and aches around your neck and trapezius muscles

•    A clinical note from a dentist dated 21 June 2023 notes:

•    You have pain in relation to the upper posterior of your face, which is sensitive to hot or cold.

•    You have a history of TMJ dysfunction and myofascial pain, but have not worn your splint for over three years.

•    The dentist notes the pain could be either an infection or result from grinding of teeth.

I consider your TMJ dysfunction is a ‘disease’ for the purposes of compensation, because there is no evidence of a sudden and ascertainable change to your TMJ. Rather, the evidence provided indicates it is a gradual condition, caused either by teeth griding or the result of an infection.

There is no medical evidence diagnosing you with a condition in relation to your head (brain), neck or shoulders. I do not consider that a report of pain, in the absence of a physiological change or a diagnosis, is sufficient to constitute a condition.

You have provided reports from your Ms Musson-Seedat dated 27 June 2023, 26 September 2023 and 30 November 2023. However, these reports do not refer to your physical injuries, only stating that your physical health has been affected. To the extent that they are relevant, they demonstrate that any psychological condition sustained in 2023 was caused by your interactions with Ms Wright.

b)     Whether your condition was significantly contributed to by your employment

I find that your condition was not significantly contributed to by your employment. In making this finding, I note:

•    Dr Lau states, in his report dated 28 July 2023, that you have developed TMJ dysfunction and that you were experiencing work related generalised anxiety and stress

•    The clinical note from your dentist notes a history of TMJ dysfunction and considers that your current symptoms could be related to an infection or teeth grinding.

A significant contribution must be more than incidental and must be assessed in the context of all contributing factors.

The evidence from Dr Lau and your dentist is inconsistent. It is not clear if your dentist excluded an infection in your teeth. It is also not clear what role your history of TMJ dysfunction has in your current symptomatology.

At its highest, Dr Lau’s report states that you were experiencing both work-related generalised anxiety and stress and also TMJ dysfunction, but it does not clearly state that your psychological condition caused your TMJ. While you have stated that your physical injuries are separate from any psychological condition, the available medical evidence does not establish a physiological cause for your TMJ dysfunction that is clearly linked to your employment. Dr Lau’s reference to work-related stress is not sufficient to establish a causal connection between your employment and the TMJ condition.

On the evidence I have reviewed, I find that your employment has not significantly contributed to your condition.

c)     Whether your condition was the result of reasonable administration action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of your employment

As I have found that your condition was not significantly contributed to by your employment, I do not need to consider whether it was suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner. However, if I did find employment was significant, I would also find that your claim would be declined under exclusionary provisions as outlined below:

Compensation is not payable to you if your condition developed as the result of reasonable administrative action which was taken in a reasonable manner in respect of your employment.

Reasonable administrative action includes actions that are undertaken and are directly related to your individual employment relationship such as counselling, assessing your performance, disciplinary action and decisions about your employment as a staff member.

On 24 January 2025, the ART found that the interactions with Ms Wright, nominated by you as having caused your physical injuries, were reasonable administrative actions taken in a reasonable manner in respect of your employment. It follows, that any temporary aggravation of TMJ dysfunction caused by those interactions with Ms Wright also results from reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of your employment.

As such, even if employment had significantly contributed to your TMJ condition, or your TMJ condition was sustained as a sequela to your claimed ‘adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood’, liability would be excluded in accordance with the decision of the ART dated 24 January 2025.

Decision

I affirm the determination dated 4 April 2025 and decline liability for your claimed physical conditions under section 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).

ORIGINATING APPLICATION

8    Mr Lockett’s Originating Application (as amended and lodged for filing on 21 November 2025) was in the following terms:

1. Review the decision of the Affirm decision handed down by Administrative (Appeals) Review Tribunal on the 24th January 2025.

•    The operative decision for review is the 4 June 2025 Second Reconsideration decision, which reopened, replaced, and superseded all earlier decisions, including the 24 January 2025 ART decision.

•    This 4 June 2025 decision, and connected decisions of 5 May 2025 and 7 May 2025, relate to the Brett Moyes original rejection decision of 4 September 2023.

•    The Applicant’s employment with NDIA is terminated as of 28 November 2025, which is a direct consequence of ongoing bullying from April 2022, originally accepted by Comcare on 9 December 2022, backdated to 31 May 2022 (claim 1341186/1).

That decision ‘Affirmed’ the Comcare 4th September 2023 rejection decision, and the Reconsideration decision to ‘Affirm’ on the 19th October 2023, and to support the Rejection decision that has now been proven to be based on false information and is an Errors in Procedure, by Comcare staff. The decisions made in relation to my 07/07/2023 WorkCover Application for Physical Injuries sustained in the work place, and was due to ongoing and sustained verbal abuse from National Disability Insurance Agency staff. The dates for the New Injury application relate to the 28th March 2023 to the 6th June 2023, abuse events.

The physical injuries sustained were to my Head (Brain), Jaw, Neck and Shoulders due to further abuse in the workplace, while already being treated under treatment for a psychological injury that was also caused due to ongoing sustained abuse in the workplace and the abuse behaviour as acknowledge and Accepted by Comcare on the 9th December 2022 and backdated to the 31st of May 2022. Medical treatment was provided and continued until 7th May 2025. That closing of that claim is also under review as treatment is still required.

2.The 07/07/2023 claim included TMJ, Neck, and Shoulder injuries alongside psychological injuries.

3. Dr Mutha IME report conducted 20 September 2023 (after 4 September 2023 rejection by Brett Moyes) and supplementary report 13 March 2024 noted further workplace events 28 March 2023, 8–11 May 2023, and 4 June 2023, causing additional injuries.

4. Carolyn Jonas affirmed the reconsideration decision 19 October 2023, but no action was taken by Comcare despite new evidence.

However, this Medical evidence has NEVER been considered and reviewed by Comcare, to date.

5. I request the conduct of Comcare staff regarding their behaviours in not following Comcare guidelines and SRC Act 1988, regarding my various injuries being both of a psychological and physical nature. Including the recent 1341186/3 decision and the 1341186/1 decision.

I am seeking their personal behaviour of Comcare staff and senior management be reviewed and why they did not follow the required guidelines regarding my physical injuries, as I am of the opinion that Comcare intentionally did not address the requirements as part of their guidelines and the Legislative requirements regarding s14 of the SRC Act 1988. This has meant my injuries have NEVER been addressed or treated.

In, the 9th December 2022 ‘Acceptance psychological injury’ had various processes followed by Comcare staff. This included contacting me and taking statements. Having an Independent Medical Examination (IME) conducted to ascertain HOW my injuries AROSE in the workplace. Further to this all medical records and various emails were presented to Comcare; however, Comcare chose NDIA version of workplace events over the TRUTH!! Which is my statements backed with evidence, that have now been proven to be CORRECT!! This did not occur before the rejection decision was handed down by Comcare Brett Moyes 4 September 2023.

On the 18 September 2023 Comcare contacted an incorrect Psychologist (Dr Ravindra Mutha) to assess my PHYSICAL injuries. Further to that the CASE SUMMARY provided by Comcare to Dr Ravindra Mutha, were full of events that were either unrelated, out-of-scope or simply did not occur in the workplace. However, Dr Ravindra Mutha believed these details and formed a distorted opinion of me, at which I take offence to, as it is TOTAL inaccurate and dishonest!!

On the 20 September 2023 (two weeks) AFTER the rejected decision was already handed down, and before all the medical evidence was requested or reviewed and after my questioning, the incorrect IME was arranged by Comcare.

I am of firm belief this Psychological IME was arranged, only so Comcare could introduce s5A of the SRC Act 1988. It was well articulated that I have psychological and PHYSICAL injuries developed due to sustained abuse in the workplace from not only 28th March 2023 to 6th June 2023, I but also prior to that from April to June 2022, where I was subjected to months of bullying, which Comcare accepted the claim of 1341186/1 on 9th December 2022, back dating to May 2022.

I request those records be reviewed, as the decision handed down on the 4 September 2023 was illegal and not accurate, and did not follow Comcare very own guidelines or, s14 of the SRC Act.

6. I seek a review of the Administrative (Appeals) Review Tribunal Member Mr Andrew McLean Williams (AAT Member) Conduct and review processes reviewed, as I believe his decision was biased and did not address my application which was heard before him.

This is where Andrew McLean Williams resulted in the ‘Affirm decision’ regarding the 4 September 2023 decision that was never reviewed on accurate or valid details provided by my employer NDIA. This decision on the 24th January 2025, by AAT Andrew McLean Williams was reckless and improper, he did not review my injuries at any stage, he was always looking for s5A for Comcare.

Therefore, this decision made by ATT/ART Member Andrew McLean Williams was based on, and relied on false intentional reporting by Comcare/NDIA. Of recent times a requested FOI, proves that the intentionally telling of untruths by Comcare, as my work performance exceeded targets in the workplace, as I completed 222 S100 reviews from January to June 2023. Yet my employer withheld my Salary Advancement payments.

I have new information proving the information AAT Member McLean Williams had relied on, is now proven to be false and was intentionally presented by Comcare to obtain an ‘Affirm decision’. Which this did occur!! I have attached the FOI information to the submission.

7. I request a review of, and the failure of the Respondents to decide that Comcare could even apply and review my injuries under s5A of the SRC Act 1988, when it was NEVER applicable, and was invalid use of s5A

I had previously and many times advised both Comcare and the ATT/ART that s5A was not applicable as my injuries were sustained for ongoing bullying from 28th March 2023 to 6th June 2023. Even though the record demonstrated that s5A was not applicable, but both parties didn’t listen to my TRUTHFUL statements. Remembering I provided Statutory declarations, evidence and an Affidavit Sworn statement all to no avail, as none of my evidence were EVER considered by Comcare of the ATT/ART. And the FOI proves I was telling the TRUTH all the while!!

8.    I request a review of the decision regarding my 4 April 2025 ‘Second request for review’ of my 28th March to 6th June 2023 workplace injuries 1341186/3.

This request was on the advice of the Comcare Minister (Murray Watt) and because I had new evidence proving my work performance was exceeding KPI’s but Comcare illegally used, s5A against me, to avoid their responsibilities, under s14 of the SRC Act 1988.

The new FOI documentation proved that I did not have any work performance issues, in fact I exceeded my weekly KPI’s, as from January 2023 to June 2023 I completed 222 228 S100 plan reviews. This is 9.25 per week, and I was a New Employee, untrained and under probation, with a KPI target of 3.4 per week. So, what Comcare asserted is inappropriate and unfitting, as I exceeded targets!! Yet, the Comcare Decision Maker (Jennifer) and the Review Officer (Cristian) again rejected my Injuries. Without even considering ANY of the medical advice, or contacting Any of the treating professional to understand their professional opinion on my injuries.

However, this time unlike the 4 September 2023 decision, this time the reviewing officer advised me, it’s not due to work performance now, the review officer (Cristian) stated HE could not see the ‘LINKAGE’, between the workplace abuse from 28th March to 6th June 2023 to the development of the injuries advised by a treating dentist and treating doctor.

I now have ‘new supporting evidence’ from the original dentist who performed an assessment of my teeth and jaw on the 07/06/2025. This dentist is in training to be a prosthodontist and is qualified to make such decisions in his professional opinion. He advised, I have TMJD!!

The Applicant is aggrieved by the decision also the Respondent’s behaviours and conduct and failure to address my VALID physical injuries because:

1.    My 07/07/2023 Physical Injuries Application has NEVER been reviewed, this is a breach of s36 of the SRC Act 1988, as a review was not conducted as requested.

2.    My injuries remain untreated from my 07/07/2023 WorkCover application due to Comcare ‘False’ reporting and intentional misguided reporting to a medical professional who was appointed AFTER the 4th September 2023 decision was made.

It is also important to understand the Appointed Independent Medical Examination (IME) was conducted WEEKS LATER, by the INCORRECT and unqualified Medical professional as my injuries were PHYSICAL, not psychological, yet Comcare intentionally appointed a psychiatrist to conduct the review. This is a breach of Comcare’s very own guidelines and the s14 of the SRC Act 1988.

3.    The Psychiatrist Dr Ravindra Mutha, was provided with a CASE SUMMARY on the 18 September 2023 that was full of events, and situations that were intentionally untruthful, and events that never occurred in the workplace.

Comcare and NDIA, INTENTIONALLY BRIEFED Dr Ravindra Mutha AFTER the REJECTION decision was ALREADY HANDED DOWN. Comcare then UNFITTINGLY and dishonestly advised Dr Ravindra Mutha of events that ever occurred. This was so that the IME assessor formed an opinion against me, and he held me in a poor light!!

4.    The Medical evidence was NEVER considered AT ANY TIME, by the Respondents Comcare as they ‘alleged’ Work Performance was involved. Recent FOI proves this to be a false claim, and the use of s5A was applied, when it was invalid and not the reason for my injuries occurring. New medical evidence proves my injuries were DEVELOPED due to the sustained abuse in the workplace. This Medical evidence proves and constitutes that an injury ‘AROSE’ in the workplace, as s14 requires the reviewer to ascertain. This NEVER occurred and further intentional events occurred, by Comcare.

5.    As advised the REJECTION decision (4th September 2023) was well before ALL the Medical evidence was reviewed and requested by the Review Officer, and well before the REQUIRED PHYSICAL IME was conducted. This never occurred and I attended an IME with a Psychologist on (20 September 2023), answer structure questions, regarding work performance rather than the REAL events, that of me being abused in the workplace, and whilst already have injury treatment for previous abuse in the workplace.

6.    The IME requested AFTER the REJECTION DECISION of 4th September 2023 NEVER assessed my physical injuries to my Head (Brain), Jaw, Neck and Shoulders, however the Psychiatrist did report that my physical my injuries (Temporo-mandibular Joint Dysfunction was reported via medial professional such as the Dentist and Treating General Practitioner.

7.    The Psychiatrist (Dr Ravindra Mutha) stated in his findings that these events in March 2023, May 2023 and the last event 6th June 2023 further DETERIORATED both my Psychological and Physical injuries. He also reports my Psychological injury was ‘REOCCURRENCE’, so why was that injury not accepted or treated!! That IME report provided in October 2023 and March 2024 is medical proof of injuries!!

8.    Providing False reports to Queensland police. This is a very serious matter, as false reporting to Police is a Breach of s365 of the Criminal Code 1899, and s140 has impacts as the reason for the false reports were to ‘shut’ me up and stop proceeding with my emails in seeking a response to questions about decisions, and I believe my employer and Comcare do not want to be investigated or questioned on how they administered the various decision they made throughout this whole ordeal.

The latest events to prevent me from speaking up was on 16 June (4.35pm) and 25 June (9.20am) Police attended my home, regarding complaints made by my employer National Disability Insurance Agency and Comcare. It is alleged that I made threatening phone calls directly to NDIA on 13 June 2025, and 24 June 2025 directly to Comcare. These calls never took place. Police have now confirmed that NDIA and Comcare made these complaints and these alleged phone calls made by me, never occurred, and no further action is being taken by Queensland police. However, I am following up as this is further intimidation and an attempt to pervert justice, by pressuring me to stop my attempts at having a valid review occur and to have both my employer and Comcare held accountable for their actions.

Grounds of application

1. Error in law – Comcare misinterpreted or misapplied the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 against my PHYSICAL injuries to my Head (Brain), Jaw, Shoulders and Neck that were sustained from relentless abuse at the hands of my employer in the workplace from 28th March 2023 to the 6th June 2023.

1. Error in Law: Comcare misapplied the SRC Act 1988 against Applicant’s physical injuries (Head, Jaw, Neck, Shoulders).

2.Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice) – Comcare failed to give me a fair hearing, ignored critical medical evidence and I am of a Firm belief both Comcare and the ATT/ART were biased in their Rejection decision of 4 September 2023 and Comcare Reconsideration ‘Affirm’ decision on the 19 October 2023.

2. Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice): Comcare ignored critical medical evidence, failed to consult treating practitioners, and decision makers included Brett Moyes (7 May 2025), creating a conflict of interest.

3. Unreasonableness – The decision on the 4September 2023 and 19 October 2023 regarding my ‘VALID’ physical injuries were so unreasonable that no rational decision-maker could ever make such a Reckless decision, as Comcare intentionally ignored key medical evidence before making both the Comcare Workcover Application and Reconsideration rejection/affirm decisions 4 September 2023 and 19 October 2023 of my valid 07/07/2023 WorkCover Physical injuries application.

3. Decisions of 4 September 2023 and 19 October 2023 were so unreasonable that no rational decision-maker could have made them.

4. Failure to Consider Relevant Factors – Comcare did not properly consider VALID medical evidence, legal provisions of Comcare guidelines and the SRC Act 1988, or an expert opinion relevant to my case.

4. Failure to Consider Relevant Factors: Comcare did not properly consider medical evidence or SRC Act 1988 guidelines.

5. Taking into Account, Irrelevant Considerations – Comcare based their decisions on irrelevant, unsubstantiated and incorrect assumptions and advice from my employer. Now, by way of an FOI, has proven to be an incorrect use of s5A of the SRC Act 1988!!

5.Taking Irrelevant Considerations into Account: Comcare relied on employer assertions and misused s5A of the SRC Act 1988.

6. Jurisdictional Error – Comcare acted beyond its legal power or authority, did not follow s14 of the SRC Act 1988, or any of its own injury Guidance’s in relation to workplace injuries, and HOW the injury AROSE, in the workplace. But overall intentionally did not take on professional advice from various medical professionals.

6. Jurisdictional Error: Comcare exceeded authority, failed s14 obligations, and ignored professional medical advice.

Orders sought

1.    An order that a Physical IME is to be conducted by an appropriate medical practitioner, regarding my 07/07/2023 request for the WorkCover application for injuries sustained to my Head (Brain), Jaw, Shoulders and Neck from ongoing stress impacts, that led to the development of Temporo-mandibular Joint Dysfunction (TMJD) and other injuries to my neck and trapezius muscles in my shoulders.

2.    A request that Comcare conducts a Compensation application review, based on the available medical evidence proved on 21 June 2023 (dentist clinical notes), 28 July 2023 (treating doctors clinical notes), and recently on the 7 June 2025 (dentist confirmation letter of TMJD). Also, review any notes from the treating psychologist, who supported Dr Lau treatment in a letter to Comcare on 28 July 2023, regarding the physical impacts from ongoing stress from the aggressive and inappropriate treatment to me in the workplace.

Medical professionals are of the opinion that those ongoing abuse events led to the development of Temporo-mandibular Joint Dysfunction (TMJD), and other muscular pain and aches around the neck and trapezius muscles. It was the medical professional advice (Dr Lau) that Comcare requested and was provide for ongoing physiotherapy as requested.

3.    The use of s5A Reasonable Administrative Action, is to be excluded from the review and the decision on 24 January 2025 be replaced by a set aside decision, given that my work performance was not EVER in question. However, s5A was used against me by both my employer and Comcare to defect the truth, of workplace bullying AGAIN occurring in the workplace. Which I was already being treated for from 6 March 2023 until 7 May 2025.

Reasonable Administrative Action (RAA) is not applicable, or justified to be applied by Comcare to me, as there is no medical evidence, or specific dates ever mentioned, referred to, or suggested by my employer, where my injuries AROSE and occurred due to RAA. My injury ‘AROSE’ as advised by the medical professionals, who advise that my ‘new’ Team Leaders aggressive and inappropriate behaviour commenced on the 28th March 2023 which, commenced the development to TMJD, and this continued until 6th June 2023 when I could again, take the abuse any longer, and left the workplace for the second time.

Just the same as last time, I advised my Assistant Director and I left the ‘unsafe’ workplace. I requested a return from 23 June 2023, but was denied by my employer NDIA. In all I personally requested on approximately (5) five occasions to return to the workplace, due to financial hardship, but I was denied by my employers. Medical professionals advised once a safe environment was found, they supported a return to employment.

This did not occur and my employers did not attempt, to assist in a safe return to work.

But, instead of Comcare following the correct procedures, as they did the first time, on the 9 December 2022, and backdated to 31 May 2022, where Comcare ruled out the use of s5A, Reasonable Administrative Action as the ONSET of the injuries, already had existed.

However, this 07/07/2023 injury claim application, despite all the available medical evidence Comcare chose do go against medical advice and evidence, and chose to apply s5A - Reasonable Administrative Action, and not assess my Valid injuries. Comcare did this based on my employer’s advice, which has since been proven to be false through, FOI.

Given I was under treatment for considerable time, and reports were provided and treatment was reviewed and supported by Comcare since 6 April 2023, then the same logic should have been applied to this injury claim 07/07/2023. Especial when the Claim manager advised that it is very obvious, that the injuries are ‘LINKED’.

Therefore, given my Injury was already accepted by Comcare and the being treated and payments were paid to the psychologist, since 6th April 2023, demonstrates the application of s5A is invalid. The former decision should have also been applied by Comcare.

My injuries were treated due to the ‘exacerbation’ of the psychological and ‘New’ Physical injuries were formed and developed due to further workplace bullying and abuse which has led to these ‘New Physical injuries’ to my Head (Brain), Jaw, Shoulders and Neck, during psychological treatment that were documented and captured.

However, Comcare decision makers this time chose the s5A pathway, despite the overwhelming medical evidence and professional advice, to avoid responsibility and payment for the extended time off work, but only covered psychological treatment.

Given Comcare chose the s5A Reasonable Administrative Action approach, this allowed them to reduce outlays in costs. Also, this allowed for Comcare to avoid being held responsible for providing extended time off work. Surprisingly Comcare provided ongoing treatment up until recently 7 June 2025. This support in providing further treatment and paying psychological treatment is proof of further injuries.

This avoidance of accepting my new Physical injuries are just game play, and has resulted in NDIA management getting away without being held responsible for further bullying of staff in the workplace, and intentionally providing false details to the insurer.

For the Record - On 07/06/2025 this TMJ injury was confirmed by treating dental professional, who is in training to become a Prosthodontist.

This confirmation was made after various tests and assessments were conducted by the medical professional in his dental practice.

4.Recognize ongoing treatment from 6 April 2023 to 7 May 2025 and previous accepted claim 1341186/1. There is only (1) accepted workplace injury 1341186/1. These treatment ($26.281.97) has led to my employment being terminated as of 28 November 2025, due to injuries sustained in the workplace from bullying commencing April 2022 to 6 June 2023.

Therefore, given the above details regarding my workplace bullying and how treatment has been approved but the extended time off work has been rejected I request the courts to:

1. Set aside the former decision of 4 September 2023 physical injuries (1341186/2).

2. I request the courts Set aside the 24 January 2025 decision by ART (1341186/2).

3. I request the courts to Set aside the 7 May 2025 decision to stop treatment for my psychological accepted injury and have treatment continue. (1341186/1).

4.    The courts Set aside the decision by Comcare to my second review of 07/07/2023 Physical injury application review (1341186/3), rejected 4 June 2025.

1. Set aside 4 September 2023 decision (physical injuries).

2. Set aside 24 January 2025 ART decision (superseded).

3. Set aside 7 May 2025 decision stopping treatment for psychological injury.

4. Set aside 4 June 2025 decision rejecting second review of 07/07/2023 physical injury claim.

(formatting, tracked changes, and errors in original)

9    On 10 February 2026, Mr Lockett further amended his Originating Application and applied to the Court as follows:

FURTHER AMENDMENT – ORIGINATING APPLICATION (STRIKETHROUGH ONLY)

QUD426/2025 – Lockett v Comcare

Filed: 12 December 2025

Further Amendment to Originating Application (Form 66)

Pursuant to the direction of Judicial Registrar Donovan

The Applicant makes the following further amendment to the Amended Originating Application filed and accepted on 2 December 2025:

1. Removal of superseded order

On page 9 of the Amended Originating Application, the following text is struck through to remove reference to the superseded Administrative Review Tribunal decision dated 24 January 2025:

2. I request the Court set aside the 24 January 2025 ART decision (superseded).

2. No other amendments

No other amendments are made.

All remaining orders and grounds of review continue to apply to the operative Comcare reconsideration decision dated 4 June 2025, and associated consequential decisions as set out in the Amended Originating Application filed on 2 December 2025.

(formatting, tracked changes, and errors in original)

10    Notwithstanding that this document is plainly not in the appropriate format, I accept that it amends Mr Lockett’s Originating Application.

NOTICE OF OBJECTION TO COMPETENCY AND SUMMARY DISMISSAL APPLICATION

11    Comcare’s Notice of Objection to Competency filed on 11 February 2026 is in the following terms:

The respondent objects to the competency of the Originating application for judicial review, as amended on 21 November 2025 and then slightly amended on 10 February 2026. The last amendment was to remove point 2 on page 9 of the 21 November 2025 version. The final amended version is referred to as the OA.

Grounds of objection

1.     To the extent the applicant seeks review of the decisions of 4 September 2023, 5 May 2025 or 7 May 2025, the application was not made within the time fixed by ss 11(1)(c) and 11(3) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (ADJR Act) and no extension of time has been sought. Further, for context:

a.     The decision of 4 September 2023 was affirmed by the reviewable decision of 19 October 2023 (see respondent’s chronology items 7-8), and affirmed by the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) on 24 January 2025 (see respondent’s chronology item 12). The applicant no longer seeks an extension of time to pursue any review of, or appeal from, the ART decision.

b.     The decisions of 5 and 7 May 2025 were affirmed by the reviewable decision of 4 June 2025 (see respondent’s chronology items 20 and 22), which is the subject of the OA (together with another reviewable decision of the same date (see respondent’s chronology item 23)). Both reviewable decisions of 4 June 2025 were made under s 62 the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act).

2.     An application for an order of review by the Federal Court of Australia in respect of a decision made under s 62 of the SRC Act must be made on one or more of the grounds in s 5(1) of the ADJR Act. An application for merits review of a decision made under s 62 of the SRC Act must be brought under s 64 of the SRC Act to the ART.

3.     Each of the purported grounds in the OA amounts to a request for merits review rather than disclosing a ground of review in s 5(1) of the ADJR Act.

4.     Ground 1 is: “Error in Law: Comcare misapplied the SRC Act 1988 against Applicant’s physical injuries (Head Jaw, Neck Shoulders).”

5.     Ground 1 invites a broad and hypothetical enquiry into the factual findings that led to a decision. It does not clearly raise a ground on which review under the ADJR Act could intelligibly proceed. It amounts to a request for merits review.

6.     Ground 2 is: “Procedural Fairness (Natural Justice): Comcare ignored critical medical evidence, failed to consult treating practitioners, and decision makers included Brett Moyes (7 May 2025) creating a conflict of interest.”

7.     Ground 2 seeks review of the 7 May decision of Brett Moyes and was not made within time, see [1] above.

8.     Ground 3 is: “Decisions of 4 September 2023 and 19 October 2023 were so unreasonable that no rational decision-maker could have made them.”

9.     Ground 3 seeks review of 2023 decisions and was not made within time, see [1] above.

10.     Ground 4 is “4. Failure to Consider Relevant Factors: Comcare did not properly consider medical evidence or SRC Act 1988 guidelines.”

11.     Ground 4 invites a broad and hypothetical enquiry into the factual findings that led to a decision or decisions. It does not clearly raise a ground on which review under the ADJR Act could intelligibly proceed. It amounts to a request for merits review.

12.     Ground 5 is: “Taking Irrelevant Considerations into Account: Comcare relied on employer assertions and misused s5A of the SRC Act 1988.”

13.     Ground 5 invites a broad and hypothetical enquiry into the factual findings that led to a decision or decisions. It does not clearly raise a ground on which review under the ADJR Act could intelligibly proceed. It amounts to a request for merits review.

14.     Ground 6 is: “Jurisdictional Error: Comcare exceeded authority, failed s14 obligations, and ignored professional medical advice.”

15.     Ground 6 invites a broad and hypothetical enquiry into the factual findings that led to a decision. It does not clearly raise a ground on which review under the ADJR Act could intelligibly proceed. It amounts to a request for merits review.

(footnotes omitted)

12    Further, Comcare sought the following orders in its Summary Dismissal Application:

1.     The amended originating application for judicial review accepted for filing on 2 December 2025 be summarily dismissed pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and Rule 26.01(1)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

2.     The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs, as agreed or assessed.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

Mr Lockett’s submissions

13    Mr Lockett made several written submissions, including those lodged for filing on 13 August 2025, 18 November 2025, 3 December 2025, 4 December 2025, 10 February 2026, and 24 February 2026, as well as oral submissions at the hearing on 26 February 2026.

14    In summary, Mr Lockett submitted that the respondent’s Notice of Objection to Competency proceeded on the false premise that the Originating Application (in its various iterations) sought merits review of Comcare’s decisions. Mr Lockett asserted that, in reality, the Originating Application challenged the lawfulness of the decision-making process, including failures to consider relevant matters, the denial of procedural fairness, a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction, and the misapplication of statutory powers under the SRC Act. In particular, the Originating Application (as originally lodged for filing on 1 July 2025 and subsequently amended on 21 November 2025 and 10 February 2026):

    pointed to material evidence that was not considered at all, was misunderstood, or was ignored in circumstances where the SRC Act and “Comcare’s guidelines” (alternatively referred to by Mr Lockett as the “SRC Act 1988 guidelines”) required Comcare to engage with that evidence;

    pleaded a systemic failure by Comcare to consider relevant medical material before and after rejecting liability;

    pleaded that Comcare mischaracterised his TMJ condition and associated symptoms (jaw, head/brain, neck and shoulders) as a “new” injury rather than a recurrence or sequela of the accepted psychological injury. This misconceived the statutory task and involved asking the wrong statutory question, thereby vitiating the exercise of power;

    pleaded that Comcare’s decision proceeded on an incorrect premise with no medical linkage;

    pleaded that Claim 1341186/1 2022 AD was never lawfully terminated or ceased, which misconceived the statutory task and involved asking the wrong statutory question, thereby vitiating the exercise of power. Mr Lockett was never notified of any decision to terminate liability or cease the accepted injury;

    pleaded that Comcare incorrectly applied the exclusionary provisions in s 5A of the SRC Act regarding reasonable administrative action;

    pointed to Comcare’s 5 May 2025 decision as evidence of further injuries; and

    pleaded that key decisions were made:

•    without obtaining relevant medical evidence;

•    without engaging with IME findings of recurrence;

•    without addressing statutory incapacity obligations;

•    by taking into account irrelevant considerations such as employer assertions; and/or

•    so unreasonably that no rational decision-maker could have made them.

15    Mr Lockett also submitted that he challenged legality, not merely outcome, and it followed that the availability of ART merits review did not answer allegations of jurisdictional error and denial of procedural fairness. In his submissions filed on 24 February 2026, Mr Lockett further claimed:

The Applicant does not seek to re-litigate the Administrative Review Tribunal decision of 24 January 2025. Rather, the Applicant challenges the lawfulness of Comcare’s subsequent reconsideration decision of 4 June 2025, which affirmed the earlier Comcare determination of 4 September 2023 and perpetuated the same legal errors, including failure to consider relevant medical evidence, mischaracterisation of the injury as a new condition rather than a recurrence/sequela of an accepted injury, and constructive failure to exercise statutory powers. The ART was not an appropriate or effective forum to address those jurisdictional errors in the 4 June 2025 reconsideration decision, which post-dated the ART determination and constituted a fresh and reviewable exercise of statutory power under s 62 of the SRC Act.

16    I also note that, at the hearing, Mr Lockett referred to the alleged failure of Comcare to take into account medical evidence. I note in particular the following submission:

MR LOCKETT: I can see that. I will cut to the chase. I understand that your powers are limited. So, what I’m asking for you to do is to resubmit this back to Comcare to make a decision on the real evidence because they did not take into account Dr Lous’ original 28 July. They did not take in Dr Bourasis’ 20 June. They did not take into account Saudah’s reports for three years. There’s a whole host of evidence showing they turned a blind eye to my injuries knowing they caused it, yet they didn’t pay me wages. Yet they treated me.

HER HONOUR: All right.

MR LOCKETT: It makes no sense.

HER HONOUR: Okay.

MR LOCKETT: So $26,184.97 of treatment over three years.

HER HONOUR: All right.

MR LOCKETT: That’s acceptance of an injury. But they didn’t pay me. So that’s all I’m saying. I would like you to submit it back to them to make a decision.

(transcript QUD426/2025 26 February 2026 pp 28-29)

(emphasis added)

17    In particular, Mr Lockett submitted that it was plain that Comcare did not take into account relevant medical evidence because they did not reference that evidence in their reports (transcript QUD426/2025 26 February 2026 p 29 lines 39-45).

18    In relation to the prospect of a hearing at the ART, Mr Lockett reiterated:

MR LOCKETT: But I still have to fight for my grandkids, and my kids, and my wife. And it’s okay for these guys to say, “Go to the AAT.” The AAT is not even the right place. They don’t look at the jurisdictional stuff. They only look at merits. And that’s how they got through the first time.

HER HONOUR: Okay.

MR LOCKETT: And that’s why I’m saying – is – the decision handed down by the member, there, was wrong, because he was told utter lies. And I don’t like those words, but that’s the truth. He was told wrongful information.

(transcript QUD426/2025 26 February 2026 p 37 lines 5-14)

(emphasis added)

Comcare’s submissions

19    In respect of the Notice of Objection to Competency, Comcare submitted in summary that:

    the Originating Application was made out of time, and no extension of time was sought by Mr Lockett; and

    each of the purported grounds in the Originating Application amounted to a request for merits review rather than disclosing a ground of review in s 5(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act) (transcript QUD426/2025 26 February 2026 p 15 lines 14-47).

20    In respect of the Summary Dismissal Application, Comcare largely relied on the grounds set out at [14] of the affidavit of Ms Kate Watson, affirmed on 11 February 2026 (transcript QUD426/2025 26 February 2026 p 4 lines 10-14), namely that:

    adequate provision for review of the relevant decision was made under the SRC Act and the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (ART Act); and

    there was no reasonable prospect of relief being granted having regard to s 10(2)(b)(ii) of the ADJR and the fact that the focus of the Originating Application was on issues relevant to a merits review process.

21    In respect of Mr Lockett’s submissions concerning medical evidence, Counsel for Comcare submitted:

MS WRIGHT: Very briefly, your Honour. Just on that point about the medical evidence, if it was ignored. Just – in the decision, I had already mentioned that, at page 80 of the affidavit of Kate Watson, the reference to the dentist is the reference to Mr Bourasis, but it doesn’t have his name. There’s also – you were referred to evidence of Ms Saudah. That is Ms Saudah Musson-Seedat. But again, on page 80, it doesn’t have her first name. So I just wanted to point out that they are the people that are referred to on page 80, and they’re also referred to in the second decision of 4 June 2025, from page 88 to 89.

…

HER HONOUR: Ms Wright, anything you want to say about Dr Merthyr?

MS WRIGHT: Dr Merthyr is also referred to on Dr Merthyr’s evidence on page 88 and 89, as well as Dr Brendon Smith, psychiatrist - - -

HER HONOUR: All right.

MS WRIGHT: - - - to Ms Watson’s affidavit. May it please.

(transcript QUD426/2025 26 February 2026 p 39 lines 14-21, p 40 lines 1-9)

CONSIDERATION

22    The decision in respect of which Mr Lockett has sought review by this Court is only identified as the “4 June 2025 Second Reconsideration decision, which reopened, replaced and superseded all earlier decisions, including the 24 January 2025 ART decision”. However, on 4 June 2025, two reconsideration decisions were made by Comcare considering related claims by Mr Lockett and related decisions concerning Mr Lockett.

23    The First June 2025 decision specifically referenced Comcare’s earlier decisions of 5 May 2025 and 7 May 2025 concerning Mr Lockett, to which Mr Lockett referred in paragraph 1 of the Originating Application (as amended and lodged for filing on 21 November 2025) as “connected decisions”. However, in that version of the Originating Application and his various submissions, Mr Lockett also made references to issues which were considered in the Second June 2025 decision, including to:

    a claim of 7 July 2023 in respect of “TMJ, Neck and Shoulder injuries”; and

    reports by Dr Edward Lau, General Practitioner, and Dr Boubaras, Dentist.

24    At the hearing I sought clarification from Mr Lockett in respect of exactly which decisions he sought review in the present proceedings. From Mr Lockett’s submissions, I understand that he has sought judicial review of the decision of Comcare “of 4 June 2025” (transcript 26 February 2026 p 22 lines 12-13). He did not specify, however, if his application was in respect of either or both June 2025 decisions. From the terms of the Originating Application (as amended) and his submissions I consider it likely that Mr Lockett has conflated the two Comcare decisions of 4 June 2025.

25    Similarly, Comcare appeared to consider that Mr Lockett was seeking review of both Comcare decisions of 4 June 2025. In particular I note the following observation of Counsel for Comcare at the hearing:

MS WRIGHT: Yes. Your Honour, it’s just unclear still whether the applicant only seeks review of the decisions of 4 June, and he has said in some respects that that is 45 all he seeks review of, although he has included significant challenge in the originating application to other decisions, including those of September 2023 and 5 and 7 May 2025. And I’m going to briefly touch on the chronology to explain why that might be the case, and why those decisions have all been superseded by subsequent decisions, and that the decisions that are within time and properly before the court are the two reviewable decisions of 4 June 2025. They are referred to at rows 22 and 23 of the chronology.

(transcript QUD426/2025 26 February 2026 pp 9-10)

26    I consider that the fairest approach is for me to treat the present interlocutory applications before me as referable to both of the June 2025 Comcare decisions.

Objections to competency

Grounds of objection 1, 2 and 3

27    Comcare submitted that, to the extent Mr Lockett has sought review of decisions of 4 September 2023, 6 May 2025 or 7 May 2025, he was out of the time fixed by ss 11(2)(c) and 11(3) of the ADJR Act and had not sought an extension of time. Comcare further contended that:

    the decision of 4 September 2023 was affirmed on 19 October 2023, and in turn affirmed on 24 January 2025 by the ART; and

    the decisions of 5 and 7 May were affirmed on 4 June 2025.

28    While in his submissions Mr Lockett contended that there were earlier decisions of Comcare, one of which had been affirmed by the ART, his submissions were to the effect that those earlier decisions informed one or both of the June 2025 decisions that are the subject of present review.

29    I further note that in his Originating Application (as amended and filed on 10 February 2026) Mr Lockett specifically abjured any intention to seek review of the ART decision of 24 January 2025.

30    In the circumstances I am satisfied that Mr Lockett has not sought judicial review of any decisions of Comcare other than the two decisions of 4 June 2025. Accordingly ground of objection 1 is not substantiated.

31    Grounds of objection 2 and 3 are by way of introduction to grounds of objection 4-15, in that grounds 2 and 3 take issue with the merits raised in grounds 4-15 as being contrary to the provisions of s 5(1) of the ADJR Act. Relevantly, Comcare contended that any application or merits review of a decision made under s 62 of the SRC Act must be brought to the ART pursuant to s 64 of the SRC Act. I accept the proposition that any application for merits review of Comcare’s decisions could only be made to the ART pursuant to ss 62 and 64 of the SRC Act, and I understand that Mr Lockett does not dispute that proposition.

32    In light of the terms of the Notice of Objection to Competency before me, a key issue is whether Mr Lockett actually does seek merits review, or whether his grounds for review are such that they fall within s 5(1) of the ADJR Act. Materially, s 5(1) provides:

Applications for review of decisions

(1)     A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for an order of review in respect of the decision on any one or more of the following grounds:

(a)    that a breach of the rules of natural justice occurred in connection with the making of the decision;

(b)    that procedures that were required by law to be observed in connection with the making of the decision were not observed;

(c)    that the person who purported to make the decision did not have jurisdiction to make the decision;

(d)    that the decision was not authorized by the enactment in pursuance of which it was purported to be made;

(e)     that the making of the decision was an improper exercise of the power conferred by the enactment in pursuance of which it was purported to be made;

(f)     that the decision involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision;

(g)     that the decision was induced or affected by fraud;

(h)     that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision;

(j)     that the decision was otherwise contrary to law.

33    In this context I will now turn to Comcare’s substantive grounds of objection to the competency of Mr Lockett’s Originating Application (as amended).

Grounds of objection 4 and 5

34    In ground 1 of the Originating Application (as outlined in the version lodged for filing on 1 July 2025 and the amended version lodged for filing on 21 November 2025), Mr Lockett alleged that Comcare had misapplied the SRC Act against the physical injuries Mr Lockett claimed to have sustained to his head, jaw, neck and shoulders.

35    Comcare submitted that Mr Lockett’s ground 1 did no more than assert misapplication of the SRC Act by Comcare, without any particularisation or explanation of what that might be.

36    By reference to both Mr Lockett’s written and oral submissions, I have endeavoured to ascertain whether, in respect of ground 1 of his Originating Application (as amended), Mr Lockett made any arguments which could enliven the Court’s powers under s 5(1) of the ADJR Act.

37    In my view Comcare is correct in contending that Mr Lockett’s ground 1 simply asserts misapplication of the SRC Act. Simple assertion of misapplication of the SRC Act does not enliven the powers of the Federal Court of Australia under s 5(1) of the ADJR Act. Mr Lockett asserts error of law by Comcare, but in his various versions of his Originating Application he does not identify what the alleged error of law by Comcare was.

38    In his written submissions filed on 24 February 2026 Mr Lockett asserted that Comcare mischaracterised his claim as a new injury rather than a “recurrence/sequela” of an accepted psychological injury. Plainly however, in both June 2025 decisions, Comcare had regard to the injuries for which Mr Lockett claimed compensation. Mr Lockett’s assertion concerning the view Comcare took of his injuries relates to the factual nature of Mr Lockett’s injuries and does not raise an error of law.

39    Mr Lockett’s case in ground 1 was, in effect, that he disagreed with the factual findings of Comcare in both June 2025 decisions relevant to his physical injuries (including Comcare’s characterisation of those injuries). This disagreement on Mr Lockett’s part extended to earlier Comcare decisions which informed the June 2025 decisions under present consideration.

40    Any claim for merits review of Comcare’s findings in this regard ought to have properly been brought before the ART.

41    Ground 1 of the Originating Application is incompetent.

Grounds of objection 6 and 7

42    In ground 2 of the Originating Application (as amended and lodged for filing on 21 November 2025), Mr Lockett claimed denial of procedural fairness on the basis that Comcare “ignored medical evidence, failed to consult treating practitioners, and decision makers included Brett Moyes (7 May 2025), creating a conflict of interest.”

43    In his various submissions, including those lodged for filing on 4 December 2025 and 26 February 2026, Mr Lockett claimed that the following evidence was “ignored or legally mischaracterised” in either or both of the June 2025 decisions:

    General Practitioner clinical notes dated 28 July 2023;

    Independent Medical Examination (IME) reports of Dr Mutha dated 16 October 2023 and 13 March 2024;

    evidence of Dr Lau dated 28 July 2023;

    evidence of Dr Boubaris (described by Mr Lockett as “dentist findings”) dated 21 June 2023 and confirmed again on 7 June 2025; and

    evidence of Ms Musson-Seedat.

44    Having regard to the material before me however I note that:

    Comcare in the First June 2025 Decision had regard to medical evidence, namely that of Dr Smith, Dr Mutha (including Dr Mutha’s reports dated 11 October 2023 and 13 March 2024), and Ms Musson-Seedat.

    In the Second June 2025 Decision, Comcare had regard to medical evidence, namely that of Dr Lau (including Dr Lau’s report dated 28 July 2023), Mr Lockett’s dentist (including a clinical note dated 21 June 2023), and Ms Musson-Seedat.

    Beyond the evidence of Dr Smith, Dr Mutha, Dr Lau, Dr Boubaras (Mr Lockett’s dentist) and Ms Musson-Seedat, Mr Lockett did not identify the “critical medical evidence” which Comcare allegedly did not have regard.

    Mr Lockett specifically took issue with a “decision of Mr Brett Moyes of 7 May 2025”. This decision was, however, the Comcare decision which was reconsidered in the First June 2025 decision. Mr Lockett has not explained why a conflict of interest has arisen, which could infect any decision currently under review.

45    In cases submitted to judicial review, it is clear that attribution of weight to evidence is a factual issue for the decision-maker: Mason J (Gibbs CJ and Dawson J agreeing) in Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd [1986] HCA 40; (1986) 162 CLR 24 at [15]; Kirby J in Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6; (1996) 185 CLR 259 at [24]. As Mason J continued in Peko-Wallsend:

15.    …So too in the context of administrative law, a court should proceed with caution when reviewing an administrative decision on the ground that it does not give proper weight to relevant factors, lest it exceed its supervisory role by reviewing the decision on its merit.

46    It follows that if Mr Lockett disputed the view Comcare took of medical evidence, or the weight to which Comcare attributed certain medical evidence, the proper course was for him to seek merits review of Comcare’s findings in the ART.

47    Ground 2 of the Originating Application is incompetent.

Grounds of objection 8 and 9

48    In ground 3 of the Originating Application (as amended and lodged for filing on 21 November 2025), Mr Lockett claimed that Comcare’s decisions of 4 September 2023 and 19 October 2023 were so unreasonable that no rational decision-maker could have made them.

49    Mr Lockett is out of time to seek review of Comcare’s decisions of 4 September 2023 and 19 October 2023. In any event, I note that Mr Lockett specifically submitted at the hearing before me that he was not seeking review of any decisions other than those of 4 June 2025.

50    Ground 3 of the Originating Application is incompetent.

Grounds of objection 10 and 11

51    In ground 4 of the Originating Application (as amended and lodged for filing on 21 November 2025), Mr Lockett claimed that Comcare failed to consider relevant factors in that it did not properly consider medical evidence or the “SRC Act 1988 guidelines”.

52    This ground is so broadly drawn that it does not raise a ground on which review under s 5 of the ADJR Act could proceed. Precisely which guidelines Mr Lockett claims were not considered by Comcare are not articulated in any version of the Originating Application, nor in his submissions at the hearing (although I note that Mr Lockett did refer to “Comcare’s guidelines” in his written submissions lodged for filing on 18 November 2025).

53    Further, to the extent that Mr Lockett took issue with Comcare’s evaluation of medical evidence before it, he has sought merits review which should properly be before the ART.

54    Ground 4 of the Originating Application is incompetent.

Grounds of objections 12 and 13

55    Ground 5 of the Originating Application (as amended and lodged for filing on 21 November 2025) was that Comcare took into account irrelevant considerations, by relying on employer assertions, and that it misused s 5A of the SRC Act.

56    Section 5A of the SRC Act defines “injury” for the purposes of the Act.

57    Ground 5 invites the Court to undertake a broad ranging inquiry, including identifying which employer assertions were irrelevant, why they were irrelevant, and how Comcare took them into account. This invitation does not plead a ground under s 5(1) of the ADJR Act.

58    Mr Lockett contended that Comcare “misused” s 5A of the SRC Act because there was no medical evidence to indicate that his injury “arose as a result of reasonable administrative action” as per s 5A(1)-(2) of the SRC Act.

59    In the Originating Application (as amended and lodged for filing on 21 November 2025), Mr Lockett asserted:

The use of s 5A Reasonable Administrative Action, is to be excluded from the review and the decision on 24 January 2025 be replaced by a set aside decision, given that my work performance was not EVER in question. However, s5A was used against me by both my employer and Comcare to defect the truth, of workplace bullying AGAIN occurring in the workplace. Which I was already being treated for from 6 March 2023 until 7 May 2025.

Reasonable Administrative Action (RAA) is not applicable, or justified to be applied by Comcare to me, as there is no medical evidence, or specific dates ever mentioned, referred to, or suggested by my employer, where my injuries AROSE and occurred due to RAA. My injury ‘AROSE’ as advised by the medical professionals, who advise that my ‘new’ Team Leaders aggressive and inappropriate behaviour commenced on the 28th March 2023 which, commenced the development to TMJD, and this continued until 6th June 2023 when I could again, take the abuse any longer, and left the workplace for the second time.

60    Mr Lockett’s assertions concerning the application of s 5A of the SRC Act constitute an invitation to merits review. He has taken issue with the view Comcare took of the facts before it in considering his claims. Mr Lockett’s concerns do not raise questions which can properly be the subject of consideration by this Court.

61    Ground 5 of the Originating Application is incompetent.

Grounds of objection 14 and 15

62    Ground 6 of the Originating Application (as amended and lodged for filing on 21 November 2025) claimed jurisdictional error on the part of Comcare, namely that it exceeded authority, failed “s 14 obligations”, and ignored professional medical advice.

63    I infer that the “s 14 obligations” to which ground 6 refers concern the provision in s 14 of the SRC Act which creates the liability of Comcare to pay compensation in accordance with the SRC Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.

64    It is unclear to me how Mr Lockett claims that Comcare exceeded its authority. I am unable to identify any basis on which I could make such a finding.

65    To the extent that Mr Lockett claims that Comcare failed its obligations under s 14 of the SRC Act or ignored professional medical advice, that is plainly a request for merits review which is outside the ambit of s 5(1) of the ADJR Act.

66    Ground 6 of the Originating Application is incompetent.

Conclusion

67    I am satisfied that Mr Lockett’s Originating Application (as amended) is incompetent.

Summary Dismissal

68    Section 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (FCA Act) relevantly provides:

Summary judgment

(1)     …

(2)     The Court may give judgment for one party against another in relation to the whole or any part of a proceeding if:

(a)    the first party is defending the proceeding or that part of the proceeding; and

(b)    the Court is satisfied that the other party has no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding or that part of the proceeding.

(3)     For the purposes of this section, a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be:

(a)     hopeless; or

(b)     bound to fail;

for it to have no reasonable prospect of success.

(4)     This section does not limit any powers that the Court has apart from this section.

(5)     This section does not apply to criminal proceedings.

69    Rule 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) (FCA Rules) relevantly provides:

Summary judgment

(1)     A party may apply to the Court for an order that judgment be given against another party because:

(a)     …

(b)     …

(c)     no reasonable cause of action is disclosed; or

70    I have given reasons for my conclusion that the Originating Application (as amended) is incompetent. For the same reasons, noting in particular that:

    none of the grounds of the Originating Application plead grounds enlivening the powers of the Court under s 5(1) of the ADJR Act;

    all of the grounds of the Originating Application request impermissible merits review; and

    none of the grounds are sufficiently particularised to plead intelligible causes of action,

I am also satisfied that the Originating Application (as amended) has no reasonable prospect of success, and discloses no reasonable cause of action.

71    The Originating Application should also be summarily dismissed for that reason.

CONCLUSION

72    The Notice of Objection to Competency filed by Comcare on 11 February 2026 is upheld.

73    The Originating Application is summarily dismissed, pursuant to s 31A(2) of the FCA Act and r 26.01(1)(c) of the FCA Rules.

74    Costs should follow the event.

Associate:

Dated:    31 July 2026