Rubasin v Murphy
[2026] QCA 125 · Bond JA, Bradley JA, Doyle JA
A woman who represented herself tried to start a court case against a forensic psychiatrist. WorkCover had appointed the psychiatrist to examine her after she claimed she had suffered psychological injury from workplace bullying. She said the psychiatrist's 2020 report was inaccurate and had wrongly caused WorkCover to reject her compensation claim, and she wanted to sue him for negligence and for allegedly falsifying the report. The registrar had been directed not to issue her claim without the court's permission, and a judge refused that permission.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed the judge had made a mistake by deciding whether a duty of care existed, rather than simply looking at whether her paperwork was properly prepared. However, the Court still refused to let her start the case because her claim documents were seriously inadequate. It changed only the costs order, deciding each party should pay their own legal costs. She may be able to try again with properly prepared documents.
Although the Court of Appeal did not determine the ultimate merits of the proposed claim, the applicant appears to face substantial obstacles if she tries again. The psychiatrist’s report was issued in June 2020, making limitation an obvious issue for a proceeding first proposed in August 2025. There may also be significant difficulties in establishing that the psychiatrist owed her the alleged duty of care, proving that any inaccuracies in his report caused the rejection of her compensation claim, and explaining why the WorkCover decision was not challenged through the available statutory review and appeal processes at the time. Subject to any facts supporting an extension of time or explaining the failure to pursue those review rights, the proposed claim appears unlikely to succeed.
Incident & injury
Alleged psychological harm arising from a forensic psychiatrist's report (produced 5 June 2020) that was relied on by WorkCover to reject the applicant's workers' compensation claim for psychological injury from workplace bullying; the applicant sought leave to commence a claim alleging a novel duty of care against the examining psychiatrist.
- Body regions
- Psychiatric
Quick facts
- Date of judgment
- 3 July 2026
- Claim type
- WCRA Statutory
- Proceeding
- Appeal
- Plaintiff outcome
- Partial
- Plaintiff age at injury
- Occupation
- Not stated
Outcome
The self-represented applicant appealed the refusal of leave to commence a claim against a forensic psychiatrist whose report led WorkCover to reject her workers' compensation claim. The Court of Appeal held the primary judge's discretion miscarried by deciding the merits of the alleged novel duty of care, but declined to grant leave because the pleading was seriously deficient. The primary judge's refusal of leave was confirmed; the original costs order against the applicant was varied so each party bears their own costs, and each party bears their own costs of the appeal.
Key issues
Rubasin v Murphy [2026] QCA 125
When typing in a Word document, italicise the case name. The copy button copies plain text suitable for any editor.