Legal Research
Cases
Bluescope Steel Ltd v Eason

Bluescope Steel Ltd v Eason

Case [2007] NSWWCCPD 172 7 August 2007

Workers Compensation Law

Type to search within this case.

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR

CITATION:Bluescope Steel Ltd v Eason [2007] NSWWCCPD 172
APPELLANT: Bluescope Steel Ltd
RESPONDENT: Trevor Eason

INSURER:Self insured
FILE NUMBER:  WCC19204-05
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:          22 March 2007
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  7 August 2007
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Section 65(13) Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:      Sparke Helmore
Respondent:   Russell McLelland Brown

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: The Arbitrator’s determinations dated 22 March 2007 and his findings, set out in his ex tempore reasons delivered on 20 March 2007, are revoked and the following orders made:
“1.The matter is remitted to a different Arbitrator for the remaining issues under section 65(13) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to be re-determined in accordance with the reasons in this decision.
2.Costs of the first and second arbitrations are, so far as possible under the relevant costs regulations, to follow the event of the third arbitration.”
No order as to costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

On 17 April 2007 Bluescope Steel Ltd (‘the Appellant Employer/Bluescope’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 22 March 2007.

The Respondent to the Appeal is Trevor Eason (‘the Respondent Worker/Mr Eason’).

Mr Eason started work with the Appellant Employer as an electrician in January 1986. At that time it was known as BHP but later changed its name to Bluescope. He worked with the company until he accepted a voluntary redundancy on 26 July 2001. He alleges that he injured his back on two occasions in the course of his employment: first in April 2001 and second in July 2001. His symptoms increased significantly when he was at home in September 2001. Neither injury was reported until about 10 December 2001 when he took steps to submit Incident Report forms to Bluescope.

Mr Eason made no claim for compensation until 12 April 2005 when his current solicitor wrote to Bluescope claiming lump sum compensation under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’) in the sum of $9,000.00 in respect of a 15% permanent impairment of his back, $7,500.00 in respect of a 10% loss of efficient use of his right leg at or above the knee and $10,000.00 compensation for pain and suffering pursuant to section 67 of the 1987 Act. In a letter dated 29 August 2005 Bluescope’s solicitor denied liability for the claim on the ground that Mr Eason had not lodged “a Claim for Compensation in respect of either injury, within 6 months of the injury, in accordance with section 65(7) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1987 [sic]”.

On 10 November 2005 Mr Eason’s Application to Resolve a Dispute (‘the Application’) was registered in the Commission. In the Application he claimed the same compensation set…

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 Bluescope Steel Ltd v Eason

Details

AGLC: Bluescope Steel Ltd v Eason [2007] NSWWCCPD 172
Case: [2007] NSWWCCPD 172
Decision Date: 7 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Bluescope Steel Ltd appealed a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission, constituted by an Arbitrator, in favour of Trevor Eason, who sought compensation for injuries sustained in the course of his employment. The Arbitrator's decision found that the failure to claim compensation within six months of the injury was excused by the operation of section 65(13) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The appeal focused on whether the Arbitrator erred in finding that the Respondent Worker's failure to claim compensation within the six months prescribed by section 65(7) of the 1998 Act was excused by the operation of section 65(13). The Deputy President found that the Arbitrator did not direct his mind to the relevant period, the six months after injury, and made errors in applying the relevant authorities. Consequently, the Arbitrator's determinations and findings were revoked, and the matter was remitted to a different Arbitrator for re-determination in accordance with the reasons in this decision. The costs of the first and second arbitrations were to follow the event of the third arbitration.

Orders