Legal Research
Cases
Anderson v Sydney Trains

Anderson v Sydney Trains

Case [2025] NSWPICPD 47 3 June 2025

Workers Compensation Act 1987

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Anderson v Sydney Trains [2025] NSWPICPD 47
APPELLANT:	Kellie Anderson
RESPONDENT:	Sydney Trains
INSURER:	Transport for NSW
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W4123/24
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Acting Deputy President Paul Sweeney
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	3 June 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Certificate of Determination dated 2 August 2024 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – s 10(3A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether real and substantial connection between accident on journey and employment; Bina v ISS Property Services Pty Limited [2013] NSWWCCPD 72 and Dewan Singh and Kim Singh t/as Krambach Service Station v Wickenden [2014] NSWWCCPD 13 considered; whether Member erred by applying a test of causation between accident and employment
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr G Horan, counsel
Turner Freeman, solicitors
Respondent:
Mr L Robison, counsel
HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Anderson v Sydney Trains [2024] NSWPIC 417
MEMBER:	Ms F Seaton
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	2 August 2024

INTRODUCTION

This appeal primarily concerns the application of s 10(3A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) to a worker’s journey between a place of abode and a place of employment.
Kellie Anderson (the appellant) commenced employment with Sydney Trains (the respondent) as a Transport Officer on 13 April 2023. On 17 April 2023, the appellant suffered injury when she fell at Strathfield Station while travelling from her home at Glenmore Park to the respondent’s Petersham office where she was undertaking training.
Relevantly, the appellant suffered injuries to her neck and left shoulder in the incident at Strathfield Station. Following the injury, she consulted her general practitioner, Dr Michael Looi, of Penrith, who certified that she was unfit for work.[1] The appellant alleges that she has been unable to return to any form of employment.
[1] Appellant’s statement dated 20 May 2024, Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 2.
On 6 February 2024, the appellant made a claim for compensation on the respondent.[2] By a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) dated 9 February 2024, the respondent denied liability to pay compensation for the injury of 17 April 2023.[3] It denied that the appellant suffered injury arising out of and in the course of her employment in accordance with s 4 of the 1987 Act. It accepted that she was on a journey between her place of abode and place of employment at the time of her injury. However, it stated that:
“you are not entitled to compensation because there was no real and substantial connection between your employment and the accident that caused your injury.”[4]
[2] Reply to Application to Resolve a Dispute (reply), p 1.
[3] ARD, p 10.
[4] ARD, pp 11–12.

THE ARBITRATION HEARING

By an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) lodged with the Commission on 23 May 2024, the appellant claimed weekly compensation and an indemnity in respect of her…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Anderson v Sydney Trains

Details

AGLC: Anderson v Sydney Trains [2025] NSWPICPD 47
Case: [2025] NSWPICPD 47
Decision Date: 3 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Anderson v Sydney Trains was heard in the New South Wales Workers Compensation Commission. The dispute concerned the claimant's entitlement to compensation for an injury sustained during a journey home from work. The primary issue was whether there existed a real and substantial connection between the accident and the claimant's employment, as required by section 10(3A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The Commission was tasked with determining whether the Member of the Commission had erred in applying a test of causation between the accident and the employment.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was the interpretation and application of section 10(3A) of the Act. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether the Member had correctly assessed the connection between the injury and the employment by applying an appropriate test. The claimant argued that the Member had applied an incorrect test of causation, which had led to an erroneous conclusion that no real and substantial connection existed. The Court examined the relevant case law, including Bina v ISS Property Services Pty Limited and Dewan Singh and Kim Singh t/as Krambach Service Station v Wickenden, to determine the correct approach to be taken.

The Court concluded that the Member had indeed erred in applying the test of causation. Instead, the Court held that the correct approach involved assessing whether there was a real and substantial connection between the injury and the employment, considering all the circumstances. The Court found that the Member had failed to adequately consider all relevant factors, including the nature of the employment and the circumstances of the accident. The Commission found that the Member's error had led to an incorrect conclusion, and therefore remitted the matter back for reconsideration. The Court ordered that the Member reassess the case, taking into account the correct legal test as outlined in the decision.

Orders