Barton v Midcoast Amusements (NSW) Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 352

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Barton v Midcoast Amusements (NSW) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 352
APPLICANT:	Edward Barton
RESPONDENT:	Midcoast Amusements (NSW) Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	25 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Permanent impairment compensation; whether applicant suffered consequential condition to his left ankle as a result of a significant tear to his left calf; Held – presence of a consequential condition is a question of causation and must be determined after a common-sense evaluation of the causal chain; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates followed; an injury can set in train a series of given events and if the chain is unbroken it will be open to the Commission to award compensation; Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd referred to; applicant’s general practitioner supports a finding of long term symptomology post-injury and the development of ankle issues; the presence of the consequential condition is established and will be the subject of referral to a Medical Assessor.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained an injury to his left lower extremity (calf) in the course of his employment with the respondent on 8 February 2021. 2. As a result of the applicant’s injury, he suffered a consequential condition to his left lower extremity (ankle). 3. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to determine the permanent impairment arising from the following: Date of Injury: 8 February 2021 Body Systems Referred: left lower extremity (calf), left lower extremity (ankle) (consequential condition) Method of Assessment: whole person impairment. 4. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor to assist with their determination are to include the following: (a) this Certificate of Determination and Statement of Reasons; (b) Application to Resolve a Dispute and Attachments, and (c) Reply and attachments. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 8 February 2021, Edward Barton (the applicant) was collecting a pinball machine from a residence in the course of his employment with the respondent, Midcoast Amusements (NSW) Pty Ltd, when he suffered a serious tear to his left calf measuring 90mm in length by 16mm wide, and 8mm deep.
The fact of the applicant’s injury is not disputed, and he brings these proceedings seeking payment by the respondent of permanent impairment compensation.
On the applicant’s own case, the assessable impairment to his left lower extremity is said to be that to his left ankle caused as a consequence of the torn calf muscle. The respondent denies there is any assessable impairment to the left ankle as a consequence of the accepted calf injury

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the only issue in dispute is whether the applicant has suffered a consequential condition to his left ankle as a result of the accepted left calf injury.
In the event there is an award for the respondent on the alleged consequential condition, the parties agree there will be an…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Barton v Midcoast Amusements (NSW) Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPIC 352
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Barton brought a claim against Midcoast Amusements for compensation for a permanent impairment to his left ankle, contending that it was a consequential condition arising from a significant tear to his left calf, suffered in the course of employment. The dispute was heard and determined by the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had established a consequential condition to his left ankle that arose from the significant tear to his left calf. This involved assessing the causal chain between the initial injury and the alleged consequential condition.

The Tribunal considered the evidence and submissions from both parties, with a focus on the medical evidence provided by the applicant’s general practitioner, who supported a finding of long-term symptomology post-injury and the development of ankle issues. The Tribunal noted that the presence of a consequential condition is a question of causation, which must be determined through a common-sense evaluation of the causal chain. The Tribunal followed the principles established in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, which held that an injury can set in train a series of given events, and if the chain is unbroken, it will be open to the Commission to award compensation. The Tribunal also referred to Kumar v Royal Comfort Bedding Pty Ltd, which emphasised that the presence of a consequential condition is a question of causation.

Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal found that the applicant had established the presence of a consequential condition to his left ankle. The Tribunal determined that the causal chain from the initial injury to the consequential condition was unbroken and that the long-term symptomology and ankle issues were directly related to the original injury. Consequently, the Tribunal referred the matter to a Medical Assessor for further assessment and determination of the appropriate compensation.

Orders