Threatened, intimidated, belittled, offended, coerced, disrespected.

That is how a Customs official felt after a routine workplace performance appraisal three years ago. She eventually sought help from a psychologist.

But Leanne Gilmour, who suffered an "adjustment reaction with depressive reaction" as a result of incidents surrounding the ill-fated appraisal, has lost a legal bid to be compensated for the condition.

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal has rejected Ms Gilmour's appeal for workers' compensation after finding the now-defunct Customs agency acted reasonably in its assessment of how the senior analyst was going at work in mid-2013.

Federal workplace insurer Comcare did not dispute that the psychological injury sustained by Ms Gilmour resulted from Customs' actions, but it is not legally obliged to pay compo if the employer can prove it engaged in "reasonable administrative actions, taken in a reasonable manner".

Ms Gilmour was a mid-ranking Customs official with a 27-year career in the agency behind her when the trouble started at an end-of-financial-year performance management meeting in May 2013.

Ms Gilmour felt she should have been given a  'Performed Above the Agreed Requirements' ('PAAR') rating.

But the meeting ended in tears when her manager Debra Hall was only prepared to agree that Ms Gilmour, a Senior Intelligence Analyst,  'Met Agreed Requirements' ('MAR').

Ms Hall agreed to take the dispute upstairs to Customs' Director of Operational Intelligence Matthew O'Connor​, who insisted the appraisal was to be finalised that day and that the rating would be MAR.

When Ms Hall broke the news to Ms Gilmour, the senior analyst said she felt her manager's conduct was "offensive, belittling, undermined her confidence and self-esteem" and "caused her discomfort and made her feel upset, unimportant and unworthy of serious consideration".

Despite not discussing the appraisal directly with Mr O'Connor, Ms Gilmour felt the director's behaviour was "offensive, belittling, hostile, threatening, intimidating, abrasive and coercive". It caused her "great discomfort" and made her feel "distressed, upset, vulnerable, anxious and victimised".

She also felt "under duress, unimportant and unworthy of his serious consideration in this matter and that he disliked [her]".

Ms Gilmour felt Mr O'Connor's approach was "disrespectful" and he had "no regard for her feelings and rights" and that she had been denied fairness and natural justice.

There was a further clash over another appraisal the following year and when Ms Gilmour missed out on the chance of higher duties and again felt she had been hard done by, she began to take time off work, consulted a psychologist and lodged her Comcare claim.

But the insurer refused to pay and Ms Gilmour took her case to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal which decided last week that the Customs official was not entitled to compensation.

Tribunal Senior Member Naida Isenberg​ was not convinced by Ms Gilmour's case, finding there was no evidence to support Ms Gilmour's position that the Customs agency had stepped across the line in its treatment of her.

"In my view there was no evidence that the applicant had been bullied into accepting the MAR rating," Ms Isenberg said.

"Neither, do I find anything in Ms Hall's conduct to be 'offensive, belittling, hostile, threatening, intimidating, abrasive and coercive' as the applicant claimed.

"Similarly, while the applicant may have felt that Mr O'Connor had been 'disrespectful' and had 'no regard for her feelings and rights', this contention, in my view, is without foundation."