Richard Darjani v Commonwealth Bank of Australia – 2025/5125

HWLE Lawyers and Peter Woulfe of Counsel recently represented the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in a workers’ compensation matter and were successful in having a request for an extension of time to seek reconsideration declined.

Background

Mr Darjani was employed by the bank from 2009 until he was made redundant in 2023.

On 26 February 2023, Mr Darjani made a claim for workers compensation for an adjustment disorder.  In May 2023, the bank rejected the claim on the basis that Mr Darjani suffered the condition as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of his employment, under section 5A of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (SRC Act).

At Mr Darjani’s request, the Commonwealth Bank extended the time for him to request reconsideration to 3 July 2023.

However, Mr Darjani only sought reconsideration of the decision on 13 June 2025, some two years later.  Section 62(3) of the SRC Act requires that a request for reconsideration be made within 30 days of the initial determination.  Mr Darjani was 711 days out of time.
On 27 June 2025, the bank refused to reconsider the initial determination, and Mr Darjani subsequently applied to the Tribunal for review of that decision.

The Decision

The Tribunal applied the principles outlined in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd and Others v Cohen [1984] FCA 176 in assessing whether the time for Mr Darjani to seek reconsideration ought to be extended. Those principles are:

• the length of and explanation for the delay
• the consequences (prejudice) of the delay to the Commonwealth Bank
• the public interest
• the merits of the substantive claim

Mr Darjani gave two reasons for his delay. The first was that his psychological health prevented him from seeking reconsideration. He also said that he formed the view that it would be futile to seek reconsideration until he obtained further evidence (namely, a report from a psychiatrist following an Independent Medical Examination).

The Tribunal rejected both of those explanations. General Member Shelley relied on emails Mr Darjani sent, in November and December 2023, contesting his performance review ratings to form the view that Mr Darjani did retain the psychological capacity to seek reconsideration at that time.  The Tribunal also held that Mr Darjani’s choice to delay seeking reconsideration until he received further medical evidence was ‘not a wholly unreasonable perspective’, but found that Mr Darjani was nevertheless aware he could seek review and did ‘nothing to protect his position’.

The Tribunal accepted that Mr Darjani’s delay caused the bank to suffer prejudice, as it lost the opportunity to manage the claim and potentially provide medical treatment and rehabilitation (if his claim was eventually accepted). Further, the memories of witnesses would have worsened over time and, as one witness was no longer employed by the bank, they would no longer have access to relevant probative material. That prejudiced the bank.

General Member Shelley said there should be ‘fairness in treatment between the applicant and others in the same position’, and granting an extension of time to Mr Darjani would be unfair to persons who have requested reconsideration within the statutory timeframe.

In relation to Mr Darjani’s prospects of having liability for his adjustment disorder accepted under section 14 of the SRC Act, the Tribunal found that he faced ‘obstacles’ but they were not necessarily ‘substantial obstacles’, and his prospects were mixed.

General Member Shelley weighed up the above consideration, and ultimately affirmed the decision under review:

In my view, the sheer length of the delay, against a 30-day statutory time frame, without adequate explanation, tips the scales heavily in favour of refusing to reconsider the decision to deny liability. To outweigh that consideration, other factors would have to be truly compelling. Where the prospects of success are no more than mixed, and the prejudice to the applicant is of his own making (where he clearly knew of the statutory time frame), that is not the case.

Take-aways

This decision highlights the importance of filing evidence that speaks directly to an applicant’s explanation for their delay, and the prejudice suffered by a respondent following that delay.

General Member Shelley relied on evidence of Mr Darjani’s capacity during the relevant period, as well as specific evidence of the prejudice suffered by the Commonwealth Bank (in the form of updated lay witness statements speaking to their lack of memory and inability to access documents) to reach his decision. The Tribunal is unlikely to be satisfied that prejudice has been suffered without such evidence.

This article was written by Andrew Allan, Partner, Ron Moss, Special Counsel and Jessica Evans, Solicitor.