A Melbourne finance team leader described as a “serial complainer and agitator” has had her bid to secure a $2 million adverse action payout rejected. A federal court found that her employer had taken adverse action by unlawfully terminating her for raising complaints. However, the court rejected her argument that the dismissal caused her psychological injury and lost income. She was instead awarded $35,000, bringing to an end nine years of litigation.
Making a complaint to your employer about your workplace conditions is a protected right under the Fair Work Act 2009. However, this does not extend to complaints that are unjustified. This adverse action case – Shum v Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre Inc (No 4) [2026] – is a prime example of that.
Melbourne-based Lai Shum began working as a finance team leader at not-for-profit Southern Migrant and Refugee Centre (SMRC) in June 2016. From late 2016, Ms. Shum became embroiled in a series of disputes within the organisation. She opposed the election of board member Brian Oates as chairman and lodged repeated complaints about his conduct and that of other board members. She also raised grievances about how management was treating her and other employees.
During Ms. Shum’s adverse action court hearing, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia found that she had “meddled” in areas which “fell outside the ambit of her workplace rights.” This included making “serious” allegations of incompetence, dishonesty, manipulation, bullying and conspiracy at various organisation leaders. Some of her emails to management were described as “insolent, rude and aggressive.”
Ms. Shum clashed with the acting chief executive, with HR and a subordinate employee. That employee made a formal complaint about Ms. Shum’s behaviour. Ms. Shum responded by lodging a counter-complaint against the employee. The court found that by May 2017, Ms. Shum had “gravely imperilled her employment.”
In March 2017, Ms. Shum lodged a worker’s injury claim citing “ongoing bullying from board to most staff.” She did not return to the workplace after that date and performed no further work for SMRC. The organisation’s workers’ compensation insurer initially rejected her claim. Ms. Shum disputed the rejection and in July 2018, she and SMRC reached a settlement. This entitled her to 52 weeks of weekly compensation payments.
While Ms. Shum was absent on workers’ compensation, in May 2017 SMRC’s interim managing director Travis Heeney oversaw a corporate restructure. This resulted in Ms. Shum being made redundant, and she was formally dismissed on 19 June 2017. The court had previously found that SMRC contravened section 340(1) of the Fair Work Act 2009 by taking adverse action against Ms. Shum. It found that her dismissal was motivated, at least in part, by her exercise of workplace rights, including her history of complaints and disputes.
The court found the restructure had an “artificiality about it” and that the decision-making process was “deliberately opaque.” It concluded that Mr. Oates had regarded Ms. Shum as “untrustworthy, troublesome and incompetent.” The court determined that SMRC used the restructure to remove Ms. Shum, who was known as a “persistent and serial complainer and agitator.” SMRC also failed to pay Ms. Shum her notice entitlement on the day of her dismissal. The payment was made four days late.
In her Fair Work adverse action claim, Ms. Shum argued that her unlawful termination had cost her decades of lost income and caused severe psychological harm. She also claimed her nine-year legal battle had denied her opportunities to advance academically, professionally and personally. Ms. Shum sought the following compensation to be paid by the the respondents, the SMRC, Mr. Heeney and Mr. Oates:
To support her claims, Ms. Shum filed eight affidavits annexing more than 220 documents, a 16-page written outline of submissions and a six-page reply. She also stated her intention to rely on every affidavit filed in two earlier trials and the contents of all court books. This amounted to thousands of pages of material.
The respondents told the court that Ms. Shum’s submissions were “a deeply problematic and unfocused document.” They claimed that they were “animated by a desire to re-run every grievance.” The court agreed, branding Ms. Shum’s approach as “highly unsatisfactory and prejudicial to the interests of justice.”
The respondents accepted that it had taken adverse action against Ms. Shum. However, they disputed the size of her claimed losses and whether the unlawful termination had caused them. The respondents argued that her economic loss was caused by the workplace injury she sustained more than three months before her unlawful termination. They submitted that she was already receiving workers’ compensation payments that covered the period her fixed-term contract would have run.
On the late notice payment, the respondents said it was a payroll error that was corrected within four days. They said Ms. Shum’s only loss was approximately 41 cents in interest, which they offered to pay. Both SMRC’s current chief executive officer and Mr. Heeney expressed remorse for the distress Ms. Shum had experienced. Mr. Oates, however, continued to deny any wrongdoing and showed no contrition.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia delivered its judgement on Ms. Shum’s adverse action payout in May 2025. It confirmed the court’s previous findings. Namely, that the corporate restructure was a pretext. Also, the dismissal was deliberate and motivated, at least in part, by Ms. Shum’s exercise of workplace rights.
At the time of the contraventions in 2017, the maximum penalty for a corporation under the Fair Work Act 2009 was $54,000 and for an individual $10,800. SMRC was ordered to pay $18,900 for the section 340(1) adverse action contravention. Mr. Heeney and Mr. Oates were each ordered to pay $3,780. For the late notice payment, SMRC was ordered to pay a further $5,400. All penalty payments were directed to be paid to Ms. Shum within 28 days.
The most significant aspect of the judgment was the court’s treatment of Ms. Shum’s claim for past and future economic loss. On this, the court made several findings:
While rejecting Ms. Shum’s multi-million dollar adverse action claim, the court still ruled that Ms. Shum should be awarded 35,000 for non-economic loss. This was made on the following findings:
In addition to this sum, the court awarded Ms. Shum 13 weeks’ wages and superannuation. This was for the period between the end of her workers’ compensation payments and her likely end of employment on lawful grounds. It also awarded her five dollars for the four-day delay in paying her notice entitlement.
Another recent case of an employee who faced the consequences of his serial complaining comes to us from the UK. Law graduate Zakir Khan had filed 42 employment discrimination claims over eight years. This included filing against employers he had never even applied to. Mr. Khan claimed that employers failed to make reasonable adjustments for his disabilities during their recruitment processes. However, not a single one of his claims succeeded before an employment judge. The UK High Court subsequently banned him from lodging further claims with the nation’s employment tribunal.
Zakir Khan began lodging claims to the Employment Tribunal of England and Wales in 2017. Over the following eight years, he lodged 42 claims against a range of employers. This included top law firms and public bodies like the Solicitors Regulation Authority, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Home Office and HM Courts and Tribunals Service. In each claim, Mr. Khan stated that he held a law degree and a master’s degree in commercial law.
When unsuccessful in job applications, he alleged that employers had unlawfully failed to make reasonable adjustments in their recruitment processes to accommodate his disabilities. These were attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety and obsessive compulsive personality disorder. In some instances, Mr. Khan did not even submit a job application. Instead, he alleged that the application process itself was so discriminatory that he was unable to apply at all.
The reasonable adjustments Mr. Khan demanded in his UK employment tribunal discrimination claims varied. They included replacing written competency-based application forms with assessed work experience. He also asked to bypass stages of the application process and have his grammatical errors ignored. Mr. Khan also sought the removal of word limits, a lowering of the minimum competency threshold for roles, and the award of higher marks at particular stages of the process. Mr. Khan even asked one employer to provide him with a scholarship to undertake a legal course.
Not one of his 42 claims succeeded before an employment judge. The majority were struck out for disclosing no reasonable prospect of success. Five were expressly certified as totally without merit. The only financial outcomes from his eight years of litigation were two “nuisance value payments” of £700 and £1,000 made by solicitors’ firms to settle claims rather than continue defending them.
In his tribunal claims, Mr. Khan railed against what he believed were the “vile, disgusting, filthy and corrupt” discrimination practices of his prospective employers. He wrote that he would continue fighting against this “till I have nothing left.” In one document, he slammed the “hypocrite institutions that are draped in badges for being ‘disability-friendly.’” In another document, he claimed that he had Anankastic Personality Disorder. He said that he “cannot tolerate injustice” against those with the condition and that he was “obsessed” with fighting until he “set it aright.”
By January 2025, the Solicitors Regulation Authority and five government departments had had enough. They applied to the High Court for a civil restraint order to stop Mr. Khan from lodging further employment tribunal claims. Mr. Khan filed a counter-claim seeking declarations that the employment tribunal had been “systematically perverse” in its conduct toward him.
He also wanted a declaration that the claimants had engaged in “improper and unconscionable conduct.” Mr. Khan sought aggravated damages, damages for psychiatric injury, punitive damages and what he described as a “new and enhanced damages” award. The UK High Court dismissed Mr. Khan’s counter-application, finding it “legally incoherent” and recording the application as totally without merit.
At the High Court hearing, Mr. Khan said that he had recently found a job. He insisted that he no longer planned to bring new employment tribunal claims. However, the court noted that Mr. Khan had recently said that his intention could “possibly change.” It also noted that Mr. Khan had said that he felt “unable to let [the claims] go until I get justice.” The court also highlighted that Mr. Khan’s own emails showed that his new job was subject to a probationary period and was not without difficulties.
On top of this, the court said that his “irrational” mindset increased the risk that he would yet again lodge a claim. It therefore ordered an Extended Civil Restraint Order for three years. This banned Mr. Khan from lodging any new claims with the employment tribunal. He was still permitted to appeal his existing claims.
Read more: Aldi Loses Bid to Dismiss Workplace Suicide Compensation Claim
If you believe you have been dismissed for exercising a workplace right, or subjected to adverse action by your employer, it is important to act quickly. We at Australian Workplace Discrimination Representatives assist employees across Australia with adverse action, unfair dismissal, forced resignation and other workplace rights matters. We know what it takes to build a strong case and we can help you understand your options.
Strict time limits apply. Most Fair Work claims must be lodged within 21 days of your dismissal. Contact us now on 1800 333 666 for a free and confidential discussion about your situation.
