In September 2018, the former worker made a claim for compensation for "anxiety, stress, high blood pressure, diabetes and depression", which she attributed to stressors at the hospital.

Comcare - the national authority for work health and safety and workers' compensation - ruled against her in late 2018, with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirming the decision.

Her non-legal advocate Peter Koyla then filed an application to the tribunal to review the decision.

However, she failed to attend conferences and hearings between May 2019 and April 2021, and the case was further delayed after Mr Koyla could no longer represent her due to illness.

The tribunal directed her to provide more information about her intention and ability to proceed with the review, but she failed to comply.

In May this year, the respondent, being the ACT government, applied for the case to be dismissed, prompting the tribunal to order an interlocutory hearing.

The former worker provided a medical certificate saying she was unable to legally represent herself and that she was experiencing financial hardship.

She asked the tribunal to dispense the hearing "in its entirety", arguing it lacked substance and that it was "so unreasonable that no reasonable person would consider making such an application".

During the hearing in July when she was set to appear unrepresented, she failed to attend.

The tribunal tried contacting her numerous times before it dismissed her application for review.

Five days later, Mr Koyla made a request for that application to be reinstated.

He alleged that one of the tribunal members "has been acting with 'venom' against all persons I have represented".

MORE COURT NEWS:

"He has either made a decision that is visibly wrong for us to pick up unnecessary costs and charges going to an appeal court in complete disregard of international covenants to which Australia is a signatory," Mr Koyla said.

He asked for "an immediate reinstatement of the application and for the appeal to be handled by a reconstituted tribunal in which he can no longer adjudicate on the matter or matters".

The government, in opposing the reinstatement, said the former worker was given enough notice that her application could be dismissed if she failed to appear at any hearing.

It said no reasonable basis existed, and the allegation that one tribunal member had "venom against all persons" had no evidence.

It also said the reinstatement would be unfair and uneconomical as the government would need to devote more time and resources to the matter.

The tribunal in late December ruled to reinstate the application.

Senior member Linda Kirk said that if the case had merit and was not heard, the prejudice to the former worker would outweigh the resources the government had already committed to the matter.

Ms Kirk said the tribunal was satisfied she had a "reasonable case to advance".

However, she said the former worker's failure to comply with the tribunal's directions "is consistent with a pattern of non-attendance at scheduled conferences and hearings throughout the course of the proceedings".

She said the failure to appear at scheduled conferences and hearings indicated her "apparent indifference to the importance of these events for the progression of her review application" and that they did not help the tribunal.

Our journalists work hard to provide local, up-to-date news to the community. This is how you can continue to access our trusted content: