Bunce v Sydney Traffic Control

In Bunce v Sydney Traffic Control, the primary issue before the court was whether the applicant was entitled to compensation for a primary psychological injury under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The respondent disputed the claim on the grounds that the applicant had a secondary psychological condition or injury, and also contested the degree of permanent impairment. The matter was heard in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide were whether section 65A(1) of the 1987 Act is a defence in the nature of disentitlement, and if so, whether the onus is on the respondent to prove the injury within the meaning of section 4 of the 1987 Act. The court considered Parker v City of Rockingham, Currie v Dempsey, The Australian Special Opportunity Fund LP v Equity Trustees Wealth Services Ltd, Vines v Djordjevitch, Ritchie v Department of Community Services, State of New South Wales (NSW Department of Education) v Kaur to determine the correct interpretation of section 65A(1) of the 1987 Act.

The court found that section 65A(1) of the 1987 Act is a disentitlement provision in the nature of a defence and the onus is on the respondent to prove injury within the meaning of section 4 of the 1987 Act, not a consequential condition. The court also found that the applicant had not sustained a secondary psychological injury. The matter was referred to a Medical Assessor for assessment of the applicant’s degree of permanent impairment. No final orders were made in this summary, but the matter was referred for further assessment.