He said all he could do was check emails. The court saw otherwise
A former Victoria Police officer's bid to sue for lost earnings collapsed after a court found he had exaggerated his incapacity.
The County Court of Victoria handed down a split ruling on September 14, 2026, in what is known as a serious injury application - a hearing where an injured worker must get the court's permission to sue for damages. The former senior constable alleged he had developed a psychiatric injury from years of workplace bullying, discrimination, harassment and unreasonable management action during his time with Victoria Police between 2008 and 2021.
The officer claimed his work capacity had been "effectively extinguished." He told the court he could use a computer for between five and 30 minutes on a given day and was limited to checking emails.
The court granted him permission to sue for pain and suffering but refused permission on loss of earning capacity. The judge found his evidence on what he could and could not do was unreliable.
The officer alleged that shortly after joining the force he became the target of bullying. He lodged WorkCover claims in 2009, 2015, 2016 and 2017, citing stress, anxiety and insomnia from workplace conflict, harassment and bullying. He said 13 of his 16 managers "continued this legacy of bullying behaviour."
He also alleged discrimination linked to his parental duties, claiming he was told he had to "work out whether he could really be a policeman." He said he reported threats and "abusive yelling" from superiors to human resources, but said his complaints were ignored. He wrote to the Chief Commissioner in 2017, saying he was desperate to resolve the situation.
In separate Supreme Court proceedings, the officer alleged Victoria Police officers committed deliberate wrongs against him - including assault, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution - stemming from an incident involving a shooting club attendance record. Criminal charges were laid and later withdrawn. He relocated interstate with his family, saying he felt unsafe.
For the purpose of the serious injury hearing, the County Court found that these events occurred in the course of the officer's employment and could be considered in assessing his condition. The court stressed this was a finding for the preliminary hearing only and that different evidence and findings may be open at trial.
The refusal of the lost earnings claim turned squarely on credibility.
Surveillance footage from August 2025 showed the officer at an airport, focused on a laptop for about an hour with only a brief break of less than a minute. The court found he was moving through different screens with text, typing, and reviewing photographs and video clips. This was "at odds with his evidence that he is restricted to checking emails for somewhere between 5 minutes and 30 minutes."
The officer said he had been relaxing, scrolling through family photos and watching YouTube. He said he needed caffeine to stay alert. The court noted the footage did not show him getting coffee or any other drink.
The judge also found the officer had downplayed his business involvement. He was the sole director of a company that ran a gym in Queensland. He told the court his role was limited to "dropping in" every couple of weeks. The court rejected this, noting he gave detailed evidence about the business's finances - loan repayments, tax positions and equipment costs - when pressed.
His accountant's evidence went further. The accountant told the court the officer was "trying to start a health product business," that the company was "under [his] control," and that they went through all the accounting entries together to prepare accounts for the gym's sale.
The officer had set up seven companies over the years. The court found it "simply implausible" that someone with a 20-year finance career, including time as a registered financial agent, would keep doing so on an accountant's say-so without understanding why.
He had also delivered presentations to a security company and a religious organisation, co-authored a book on anti-inflammatory diets and registered multiple business names - none of which appeared in his first three affidavits. The court found he had "selectively sought to present a picture of himself as totally incapacitated" to strengthen his case.
The medical opinions on work capacity were also set aside. The court found that none of the treating practitioners or medico-legal examiners had been aware of the officer's gym involvement, business activities or presentations.
Despite the credibility collapse on earning capacity, the court accepted the officer had a genuine psychiatric injury from his employment.
The judge found his condition had gone into remission by late 2018, with his treating psychologist declaring him fit for operational duties by January 2019. But the execution of a search warrant on his home in February 2019 triggered what the psychologist described as "a critical psychological tipping point." Unlike earlier episodes, the officer's condition did not improve after he left the workplace.
The court was satisfied the officer had a psychiatric condition requiring regular treatment and multiple medications, including antidepressants and drugs for nightmares and sleep. Not being able to work as a police officer was, for this individual, a consequence the court found met the legal threshold for serious injury on pain and suffering.
On lost earnings, however, the court said it simply could not determine his actual work capacity "because I do not have reliable evidence upon which to make a finding."
The officer was granted permission to bring proceedings for pain and suffering damages only.
