An investigative process that reaches final determinations of misconduct prior to the formal disciplinary investigation under s81 PSMA will, if used to support the final determination, deny procedural fairness to the employee. However, if the prior investigative report is formally excluded from consideration in the subsequent disciplinary process, the proceedings may proceed fairly.

An employer does not breach its legal obligations by requiring a complainant of sexual harassment to make a formal, written complaint investigated by HR and disclosed to the respondent, provided the investigation is conducted fairly, promptly, and the accusations are serious in nature and necessarily require the respondent's response.

An employer who undertakes contractual obligations to provide a safe and healthy work environment must act with urgency to investigate and resolve complaints of intimidating or threatening conduct by a supervisor, particularly where the employer knows the employee continues to work under that supervisor's management.

A promise to support anyone making a genuine complaint necessarily includes an implied promise to carry out an adequate and timely investigation into the merit of the complaint and to endeavour to achieve a result that will resolve the problem and accord with the employer's stated culture.

The gravity of the alleged offence will dictate the nature and extent of the inquiry which the employer must conduct; this is particularly acute where allegations concern personal safety of vulnerable persons (child, health worker, child care provider) or serious dishonesty.

Historical sexual assault allegations attract particular caution regarding forensic disadvantage: issues of delay in complaint, distortion of human recollection, and the need for unmistakeable directions on corroboration and the absence of contemporaneous evidence must be considered in civil proceedings, albeit with acknowledgment of different standards between workplace and criminal contexts.

Procedural fairness requires that in disciplinary investigations, the respondent be advised of the complaint, the process to be followed, available support mechanisms, and be provided with an opportunity to respond to allegations. An 'opportunity to respond' must be an informed opportunity, armed with the substance of the allegations.

Defects in procedural compliance can be cured as part of the conduct of the de novo appeal, and an assessment of whether a person has been denied natural justice is a practical question in light of all circumstances; a minor procedural failure would not necessarily entitle a person to a remedy.

Procedural fairness requires that before suspending an employee and requiring a fitness-for-work assessment, the employer must provide specific details of conduct allegations, identify dates and contexts, and afford the employee opportunity to respond; broad allegations without particulars are insufficient.

The exercise of a power by the State to enter into a contract with a person is not ordinarily conditioned by a requirement to accord procedural fairness to other persons who may aspire to enter into the same contract.

The mere fact that a member of a selection panel for a vacancy has given a reference for a candidate for that vacancy is not sufficient to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

Where satisfaction of the civil standard of proof depends on inference, there must be something more than mere conjecture or guesswork. The circumstantial evidence must raise a more probable inference in favour of what is alleged.