Client Login
A: Suite 1, 651 Canterbury Road
Surrey Hills,
Victoria, Australia
T: 61 3 9898 2061
F: 61 3 9898 0602

Legal Issues

AIFP recognises - through long experience - that using psychological profiling to assist with hiring decisions means that the system which is used must be legally defensible.  

We are available to assist clients with any enquiries which may emerge concerning the application of our system. This includes providing evidence about the reliability and validity of our findings.

Should a matter require litigation, our Director, Dr Byrne, is available to serve as an expert witness. He is an experienced court room expert, having given evidence in most States and Territories in Australia at all levels.

Dr Byrne's experience includes teaching judges, barristers, solicitors, police prosecutors and a range of mental health professionals about the role of experts in the courtroom.

American Legal Challenges  

In the United States, where the legal system makes it easier for applicants to challenge our findings, our approach has been upheld in 95% of cases where our findings have been tested in court. In most cases this has meant being scrutinised under the rigour of cross examination.

Australian Case Law  

Legal cases which may be of interest are listed below:  

State of New South Wales -v- Seedsman.

A Police Officer successfully sued her employer based on a mental injury. Ms Seedsman suffered from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder associated with her work. The NSW Appellate Court concluded that the Police Service had not provided a safe working environment. She was awarded $125, 000.

For a further summary of this case see our Newsletter Volume 1, Issue 1.

For a full report go to and view under Cases & Legislation/NSW/NSW Case Law - Supreme Court of NSW - Court of Appeal Decisions 1999/Case Name Search/Seedsman.

Borg -v - Commisioner, Department of Corrective Services & Anor.

A Correctional Officer successfully sued her employer for sexual harassment, discrimination based on gender and victimisation. Although her senior officers denied any of the allegations, the Tribunal found that both her supervisor and her employer were liable for damages. This case confirmed the legal principle that an employer is responsible for the behaviour of its employees.

For a more detailed summary see our Newsletter Volume 2, Issue 3.

For a full report go to and view under Cases & Legislation/NSW/NSW Case Law - Administrative Decisions Tribunal of NSW/Case Name Search/Borg then select NSW ADT42 (26 March 2002).

Rutherford -v - Wilson and State of Queensland.

A woman who was employed with the Department of Premier & Cabinet in Queensland made an allegation of sexual abuse. In its defence the Government submitted that if the abuse had taken place, the Government was not responsible. The Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Queensland concluded that the abuse had taken place, and that the employer was responsible for the behaviour of its employee.

For a full report go to and view under Cases & Legislation/Qld Case Law - Anti-Discrimination Tribunal Queensland 1997/Search Decisions/Rutherford and then select QADT7.