One part of his claim failed - the part that survived is the lesson for employers
A worker's fear of radioactive contamination - even an irrational one - can support a compensable mental injury, the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory held.
The decision, handed down on July 1, 2026, also shows how quickly a psychological-injury claim can unravel when the medical opinion behind it rests on events a court finds never happened.
The case involved a heavy machinery operator placed by labour-hire firm CGH Group Pty Ltd, trading as Corestaff, on closure and rehabilitation work at the Ranger Uranium Mine in Jabiru. His role included removing contaminated mud from the mine's former tailings dam.
After a shift cleaning mud-covered trucks in October 2021, he reported symptoms he attributed to radiation exposure and did not return to work. His first claim, for physical injury, was rejected by the employer. A second claim, for mental injury he linked to alleged bullying and harassment, was rejected too. He took both to the Work Health Court, which found in June 2025 that he had suffered a mental injury from his employment and ordered the employer to pay compensation for total incapacity from October 20, 2021, plus interest and reasonable medical and rehabilitation costs.
The trial court reached that result on two separate threads. It found the worker "honestly felt harassed" by a supervisor's direct, abrupt manner and by radio calls telling him to reposition his truck. It also accepted a psychiatrist's view that the "second and more substantial" cause of his condition was a fear of contamination from cleaning the trucks.
There was a tension in that. The same court had rejected almost every specific bullying and harassment allegation and described the worker as "a generally unreliable witness." On appeal, the Supreme Court held the harassment thread could not survive that. The expert opinion on bullying assumed incidents the court had found did not occur, so it carried no probative weight.
The contamination thread held. The court confirmed that a psychological condition arising from a perceived physical injury - here, feared contamination - is capable in law of being a mental injury arising out of employment. The limit that matters for employers: the perception has to flow from a workplace event that actually took place. It did here. There was no dispute the worker was required to clean mud-covered carts from the tailings dam, and he raised contamination concerns within days.
For HR and safety leaders, two points stand out. First, under this line of authority, a worker's honest perception of harm - even an unfounded one - can be compensable if it flows from a real workplace incident. Second, an expert diagnosis is only as reliable as the facts it assumes. Strip out the disputed incidents, and the opinion built on them can fall away.
The court dismissed the worker's own appeal, which had sought to revive his abandoned physical-injury claim. It allowed the employer's cross-appeal in part, setting aside the compensation order because it lacked the necessary precision, and sent the amount of compensation, interest and medical and rehabilitation expenses back to the Work Health Court to be settled according to law.
