In this episode of P.I. Case Note, Michelle Wright examines the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission’s decision in Powell v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2025] QIRC 310, which provides practical guidance on getting workplace documents for injury claim proceedings when your employer objects to production. The case involved Miss Powell, who suffered psychiatric injuries during her employment with EB Games, had her claim initially accepted by WorkCover but overturned by the Regulator on reasonable management action grounds, and who sought four categories of documents through a notice of non-party disclosure—including position descriptions, complaint investigation records, documents about other employees’ complaints, and information about her predecessor’s departure.
The Commission’s comprehensive analysis reveals both the scope and limitations of getting workplace documents for injury claim appeals when employers raise objections about expense, relevance, particularity, privilege, and confidentiality. The Commission confirmed that in a hearing de novo, the scope of documents is not confined to those considered by WorkCover or the Regulator but is set by the statement of facts and contentions, lists of stressors, and the legislation. On the substantive categories, the Commission allowed production of position descriptions and resumes as relevant to understanding what constituted reasonable management action and the authority and qualifications of those responsible for management decisions. For complaint investigation records, the Commission found them relevant but required narrowing the wording to remove oppressive terms like “including” and “and/or all” that required reviewing too much irrelevant material. Most significantly, the Commission addressed the controversial third category—complaints made by other employees about bullying and harassment in the HR team—noting this raised propensity or tendency evidence issues ordinarily inadmissible in courts. However, the Commission found such similar fact evidence would be admissible if logically probative and not unfair or oppressive, determining the documents were relevant to issues in dispute but again requiring narrower wording. The request for the predecessor’s contact details was rejected as searching for a witness rather than documents directly relevant to proceedings, though documents evidencing the predecessor’s reasons for leaving were ordered.
Listen for Michelle Wright’s detailed analysis of this important decision on getting workplace documents for injury claim appeals and drafting effective disclosure notices. If you’re pursuing a workers’ compensation claim for psychiatric injury and need documents about management conduct, complaint investigations, or workplace culture issues, the experienced team at accident legal understands how to draft notices of non-party disclosure that survive objections. As Queensland’s trusted personal injury lawyers, we know how to request documents with sufficient particularity, avoid oppressive wording, and establish relevance to issues in dispute—including the strategic use of similar fact evidence in appropriate cases. Contact us for a free consultation on (07) 3740 0200—we’ll ensure you obtain the workplace documents needed to prove your injury claim while navigating the complex disclosure rules that can make or break your case.