Anderson v Sydney Trains - [2024] NSWPIC 417

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Anderson v Sydney Trains [2024] NSWPIC 417
APPLICANT:	Kellie Anderson
RESPONDENT:	Sydney Trains
MEMBER:	Fiona Seaton
DATE OF DECISION:	2 August 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether there was a real and substantial connection between employment and the accident or incident due to the applicant carrying a backpack with textbooks; Held – while there was an association between the employment and the accident or incident, it was not sufficiently real and substantial to satisfy section 10(3A) in this case; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. There was not a real and substantial connection between the applicant’s employment and the accident or incident on 17 April 2023 out of which the applicant’s personal injury arose. 2. As the requirements of s 10(3A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 are not met the applicant is not entitled to payments of weekly benefits compensation. 3. There is an award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant Ms Kellie Anderson was employed by the respondent Sydney Trains as a Transport Officer commencing on 13 April 2023. On 17 April 2023 she was travelling from her home to attend a training course at Petersham. This required her to change trains at Strathfield station. When she was walking between platforms she fell and injured her neck and left shoulder.
The applicant claims weekly benefits from 17 April 2023 to 6 March 2024 on the basis that there is a real and substantial connection between her employment with the respondent and the accident or incident out of which her injury arose.
A dispute notice under s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 was issued by the respondent on 9 February 2024. The dispute was confirmed following internal review on 4 April 2024.
The respondent’s view is that there is no real and substantial connection between the employment and the injury on 17 April 2023 as required by s 10(3A) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
An Application to Resolve a Dispute was lodged in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) by the applicant on 23 May 2024 claiming weekly benefits compensation.
The dispute was listed for conciliation/arbitration for determination of whether there is a real and substantial connection between the applicant’s employment with the respondent and the accident or incident on 17 April 2023, and the extent and quantification of any incapacity for work as a result of the injury.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether there is a real and substantial connection between the applicant’s employment and the accident on 17 April 2923 pursuant to s 10(3A) of the 1987 Act, and
(b) the extent and quantification of any incapacity for work in the period 17 April 2023 to 6 March 2024.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The parties appeared for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing before the Commission on 12 July 2024. Mr…

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 [2024] NSWPIC 417
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 417
Decision Date: 2 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Anderson sued Sydney Trains alleging that an injury he sustained was compensable under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The respondent argued that the injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, the applicant's employment because the injury occurred due to the applicant carrying a backpack with textbooks, which was not related to his employment. The court was required to determine whether there was a real and substantial connection between the employment and the accident or incident, as required by section 10(3A) of the Act.

The court considered the relevant provisions of the Act and the facts of the case. It found that while there was an association between the employment and the accident or incident, it was not sufficiently real and substantial to satisfy the requirements of section 10(3A). The court held that the applicant's carrying of the backpack with textbooks was not an integral part of his employment and did not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment. The court further held that the risk of injury due to carrying a backpack with textbooks was a common risk inherent in everyday life and not a specific risk associated with the applicant's employment.

The respondent was successful in its claim for an award against the applicant. The court held that the applicant's injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment and therefore was not compensable under the Act. The applicant's claim was dismissed and the respondent was awarded costs.

Orders