Bunnings Group Limited v Harrison - [2025] NSWPICPD 74

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Bunnings Group Limited v Harrison [2025] NSWPICPD 74
APPELLANT:	Bunnings Group Limited
RESPONDENT:	Kayley Jane Harrison
INSURER:	Wesfarmers Retail Holdings Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W29565/24
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	21 October 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The name of the appellant (the respondent below) is amended wherever it appears to “Bunnings Group Limited”. 2. Leave to appeal the interlocutory decision dated 15 April 2025 pursuant to s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 is granted. 3. Determination [3] of the Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 15 April 2025 is amended to read: “3. For the purpose of assessment and quantification of the applicant’s entitlement to payment of permanent impairment compensation pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act, the date of the applicant’s primary psychological injury is 6 April 2022.” 4. Order [6] of the Member’s Certificate of Determination is amended to read: “6. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment as follows: Date of injury: 6 April 2022 (deemed). Body parts: psychological. Method: whole person impairment.” 5. The Member’s Certificate of Determination is otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – approach to be taken in considering alleged errors of fact – State of New South Wales v Culhana [2025] NSWCA 157 applied – s 15 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – deemed date of injury – Haddad v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 135 applied – s 261(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) – s 261(6) of the 1998 Act – awareness of injury not relevant when awareness of injury pre-dates the deemed date of injury – s 261(4) of the 1998 Act – whether delay in making the claim for compensation was occasioned by ignorance, mistake or other reasonable cause
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr T Ainsworth, solicitor
Hall & Wilcox Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr A Parker, counsel
Nikolovski Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Harrison v Bunnings Warehouse [2025] NSWPIC 152
MEMBER:	Ms K Garner
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	15 April 2025

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Ms Kayley Harrison (the respondent) (the applicant below) commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) claiming lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of a primary psychological injury alleged to have been a “disease” injury in accordance with s 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act, with a deemed date of injury pleaded as 21 July 2021. The date the respondent claimed compensation for her primary psychological injury was 8 November 2023.
The appellant disputed the respondent’s entitlement to compensation on the basis that:
(a) the respondent did not sustain a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of her employment in accordance with s 4 of the 1987 Act;
(b) the respondent’s employment…

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 Bunnings Group Limited v Harrison 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] NSWPICPD 74
Decision Date: 21 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court involved Bunnings Group Limited, the appellant, and Harrison, the respondent, regarding an injury claim under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The primary issue was whether the respondent's delay in making the claim was due to ignorance, mistake or other reasonable cause as per section 261(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The court was also tasked with determining the deemed date of the injury in accordance with section 261(4) of the same act.

The legal issues required the court to consider the principles established in State of New South Wales v Culhana [2025] NSWCA 157 and Haddad v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 135. Specifically, the court had to determine the relevance of the respondent's awareness of the injury in light of the deemed date of injury, as well as the correct approach to assessing the delay in the claim. The court considered whether the delay in making the claim for compensation was due to ignorance, mistake or other reasonable cause, and if the respondent's awareness of the injury pre-dated the deemed date of injury.

The court concluded that the delay in making the claim was not due to ignorance, mistake or other reasonable cause. The respondent's awareness of the injury prior to the deemed date of injury was not relevant under section 261(6) of the 1998 Act. The court found that the appeal was well-founded and allowed it, setting aside the decision of the Primary Judge and remitting the matter to the Workers Compensation Commission for further consideration in light of the court's findings. The court did not make any orders as to costs.

Orders