JUDGE:	Richards J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	27 May 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 June 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Attanayake v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 387

---

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Appeal from Magistrates’ Court against dismissal of claim for compensation under Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) – Appellant claimed to have suffered anxiety and depression caused by sexual harassment, bullying and threats by two supervisors – Magistrate satisfied that supervisor sexually harassed appellant at train station but held incident not work-related – Other allegations not proved – Magistrate found appellant did not suffer a ‘work injury’ – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013, s 39(1) required consideration of whether injury arose out of employment – Magistrate did not apply correct test – Whether Magistrate erred in finding no injury caused by train station incident – Magistrate erred by not considering all of the medical evidence – Magistrate’s reasons adequate – Appeal allowed – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) s 39(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A Clements QC with Ms S Gold	Robinson Gill
For the Respondent	Mr S O’Meara QC with Mr R Kumar	Minter Ellison

HER HONOUR:

Sunethra Attanayake worked for Simplot Australia Pty Ltd as a process worker between October 2013 and August 2015. Her job involved packing seafood products into plastic containers on a production line. She ceased work abruptly in late August 2015 and, two weeks later, made a claim for compensation under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) (WIRC Act). Her claim for compensation was for anxiety and depression that she said was caused by sexual harassment, bullying and threats during her work at Simplot. Ms Attanayake alleged mistreatment by one supervisor between January 2014 and August 2015, and by a second supervisor over a shorter period in 2015.

Simplot rejected the claim, on the basis that Ms Attanayake did not sustain injury arising out of or in the course of employment, or that her employment was not a significant contributing factor to her injury. Ms Attanayake disputed that decision, and in July 2016 she commenced a proceeding in the Magistrates’ Court claiming weekly payments of compensation and payment of medical and like expenses in accordance with the WIRC Act. Her claim was heard over four days in March 2018. On 13 August 2018, Magistrate Ginnane published reasons for his decision to dismiss the claim, with costs. Orders to that effect were made on 22 August 2018.

Ms Attanayake has appealed to this Court against the dismissal of her claim, under s 109 of the Magistrates Court Act 1989 (Vic). An appeal may be brought under that section on a question of law. Three questions of law were…

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 Attanayake v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Attanayake v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 387
Case: [2019] VSC 387
Decision Date: 13 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Attanayake v Simplot Australia Pty Ltd was an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria concerning a claim for workers’ compensation. The appellant, Attanayake, sought compensation for anxiety and depression resulting from alleged sexual harassment, bullying, and threats by two supervisors at her workplace. The Magistrates’ Court dismissed the claim, finding that the sexual harassment incident at the train station was not work-related and that other allegations were not proven. The court held that Attanayake did not suffer a ‘work injury’ under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic), and therefore did not satisfy the requirements for compensation. The appellant argued that the Magistrate did not apply the correct test when determining whether the injury arose out of employment and that the Magistrate erred in not considering all of the medical evidence.

The court examined whether the Magistrate correctly applied the statutory test for determining if an injury arose out of employment, as outlined in section 39(1) of the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic). It was determined that the Magistrate did not apply the correct test and failed to consider all of the medical evidence. The court held that the Magistrate's reasons were adequate to allow for an appeal. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates’ Court for reconsideration in light of the court’s findings. The decision underscored the importance of correctly applying the statutory test for determining if an injury arose out of employment and the need to consider all relevant evidence in such cases.

Orders