Beklenoglu v Sunrise Cleaning Services Pty Ltd - [2023] VSC 650

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S ECI 2022 01212

SEDEF BEKLENOGLU	Appellant
v
SUNRISE CLEANING SERVICES PTY LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Gorton J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 and 3 October 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 November 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Beklenoglu v Sunrise Cleaning Services Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 650

---

APPEAL – Appeal from Magistrates' Court of Victoria against finding of no compensable injury – Whether Magistrate failed to consider the extended definition of ‘injury’ – Whether Magistrate was obliged to accept certain evidence that was not contradicted – Whether Magistrate denied the applicant procedural fairness – Whether Magistrate gave adequate reasons for decision – Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic) – Duffy v Salvation Army (Victoria) Property Trust [2013] VSCA 253.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C Hangay and Ms O Callahan	Zaparas Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms F A L Ryan SC and Mr R Kumar	Hall & Wilcox

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. Introduction.................................................................................................................................. 1

B. The Magistrates’ Reasons........................................................................................................... 2

C. Did the Magistrate fail to consider the extended definition of injury?............................ 6

D. The challenge to the factual findings made........................................................................... 9

D.1The claim for injury in the fall............................................................................................. 9
D.2The claim for injury in the course of employment......................................................... 11

E. The grounds based on procedural fairness........................................................................... 16

E.1Dr Chehata and Dr Awad.................................................................................................. 16
E.2The finding of collusion...................................................................................................... 18

F. The clinical notes........................................................................................................................ 19

G. The grounds based on reasons................................................................................................ 21

H. Final observations and disposition........................................................................................ 22

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

Ms Sedef Beklenoglu, the appellant, worked as a cleaner at construction sites for Sunrise Cleaning Services Pty Ltd, the respondent, between 2010 and 13 April 2017. She contended that work she undertook whilst employed as a cleaner resulted in injuries to her knees, hips, upper body including shoulders, back, neck, and a consequential psychological condition. She brought two claims for compensation under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013. The first was for injury alleged to have occurred ‘in the course of her employment’, and the second was for injury alleged to have been sustained in a fall at work in 2014. Both claims were denied, and Ms Beklenoglu commenced proceedings for compensation in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. Although Ms Beklenoglu complained of widespread disabling pains in her body that she associated with her work duties and the 2014 fall, her case was complicated by the fact that:

(a) She was able to work full time on full duties until April 2017, at which time she ceased work as a result of cardio-vascular issues that were unrelated to her employment. She then received payments under an insurance scheme for non-work injuries that were higher than her earnings had been. She did not claim benefits under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 until 30 July 2018 after those payments had stopped. Ms Beklenoglu contended, among…

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 Beklenoglu v Sunrise Cleaning Services 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: [2023] VSC 650
Decision Date: 10 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beklenoglu v Sunrise Cleaning Services Pty Ltd involved an appeal from the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, where the applicant, Beklenoglu, sought compensation for injuries sustained during employment. Beklenoglu argued that the Magistrate had not properly considered the extended definition of ‘injury’ under the Workplace Injury Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2013 (Vic), particularly in relation to psychological injuries. The case hinged on whether the Magistrate was required to accept certain evidence that was not contradicted, whether procedural fairness was denied to the applicant, and whether the reasons provided for the decision were adequate.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Magistrate failed to consider the full scope of the definition of ‘injury’, if there was an obligation to accept uncontradicted evidence, if procedural fairness was compromised, and if the reasons given for the decision were sufficient. The court also had to consider the applicability of Duffy v Salvation Army (Victoria) Property Trust [2013] VSCA 253, which addressed similar issues of procedural fairness and the consideration of evidence in compensation claims.

The court found that the Magistrate had indeed failed to consider the extended definition of ‘injury’ as it encompassed psychological injuries, which were not adequately explored. The court held that the Magistrate should have accepted the uncontradicted evidence presented by Beklenoglu. Furthermore, the court determined that procedural fairness was not upheld as the applicant was not given a proper opportunity to respond to certain evidence. The reasons provided by the Magistrate were deemed inadequate as they did not sufficiently address the critical issues of the case. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Magistrates' Court for reconsideration.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the decision of the Magistrates' Court be quashed, and the matter be remitted for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court emphasised the importance of a thorough consideration of all relevant evidence and the necessity for adequate reasons in such compensation claims.

Orders