Bennett v The Hills Shire Council - [2024] NSWPIC 518

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Bennett v The Hills Shire Council [2024] NSWPIC 518
APPLICANT:	Jacob Bennett
RESPONDENT:	The Hills Shire Council
MEMBER:	John Turner
DATE OF DECISION:	18 September 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 11A(1); psychological injury; whether psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the respondent with respect to performance appraisal, discipline and/or provision of employment benefits; Irwin v Director General of Education, Ivanisevic v Laudet Pty Ltd, Northern NSW Local Health Network v Heggie, Pirie v Franklins Ltd, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd, Temelkov v Kemblawarra Portuguese Sports and Social Club Ltd, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, A1 Granny Flats v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (icare), Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd, Dunn v Department of Education and Training, and Bottle v Wieland Consumables Pty Ltd considered; Held – the applicant’s accepted psychological injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the respondent in respect to performance appraisal, discipline and/or provision of employment benefits.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The Application to Admit Late Documents lodged by the respondent dated 7 June 2024 is rejected. 2. The reports of Dr Sameh Younan dated 24 May 2024, 29 May 2024 and 28 May 2024 and the letters of instruction to Dr Younan which appear at pages 1 to 38 of the Application to Admit Late Documents lodged by the respondent dated 5 June 2024 are withdrawn from evidence. 3. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: (a) Date of injury: 5 March 2021 (deemed) – disease. (b) Body systems / parts: primary psychological/psychiatric disorder. (c) Method of assessment: whole person impairment. 4. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents, (b) Reply and attached documents and associated video footage, (c) documents attached to Application to Admit Late Documents (AALD) lodged on behalf of the applicant dated 28 May 2024; (d) documents attached to AALD lodged on behalf of the respondent dated 28 May 2024, (e) documents and video attached to AALD lodged on behalf of the respondent dated 5 June 2024 with the exception of pages 1 to 38 of the attachments which are to be excluded for the referred documents, and (f) documents attached to AALD lodged on behalf of the applicant dated 12 June 2024.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Jacob Bennett, the applicant, commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) with the filing of an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) on 28 February 2024. On 21 March 2024 The Hills Shire Council, the respondent,…

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 Bennett v The Hills Shire Council 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: [2024] NSWPIC 518
Decision Date: 18 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bennett v The Hills Shire Council involved a dispute concerning whether the applicant's psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken by the respondent in relation to performance appraisal, discipline, or the provision of employment benefits. The matter was heard in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The legal issue before the tribunal was whether the applicant's psychological injury was caused by actions taken by the respondent that were reasonable in the circumstances, as required by section 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This involved interpreting and applying relevant case law and statutes, such as Irwin v Director General of Education, Ivanisevic v Laudet Pty Ltd, Northern NSW Local Health Network v Heggie, Pirie v Franklins Ltd, Department of Education and Training v Sinclair, Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd, Temelkov v Kemblawarra Portuguese Sports and Social Club Ltd, Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, A1 Granny Flats v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (icare), Ponnan v George Weston Foods Ltd, Dunn v Department of Education and Training, and Bottle v Wieland Consumables Pty Ltd.

In its decision, the tribunal found that the applicant's accepted psychological injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken by the respondent in respect of performance appraisal, discipline, or the provision of employment benefits. The tribunal considered the evidence and the applicable legal principles, concluding that the respondent's actions were not the predominant cause of the applicant's injury.

The tribunal's decision provided clarity on the scope of section 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, confirming that not all psychological injuries caused by workplace actions will be excluded from compensation. The tribunal's findings were based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and the relevant legal framework, ensuring a fair and just outcome for the applicant.

Orders