Legal Research
Cases
Busways Group Pty Ltd v Chandi

Busways Group Pty Ltd v Chandi

Case [2024] NSWPICPD 52 21 August 2024

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Busways Group Pty Ltd v Chandi [2024] NSWPICPD 52
APPELLANT:	Busways Group Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Reji Chandi
INSURER:	AAI Limited t/as GIO
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W467/23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	21 August 2024
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 16 August 2023 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – alleged failure to give adequate reasons – Wang v State of New South Wales [2019] NSWCA 263; Musija v Kresa [2010] VSCA 163 applied – alleged failure to deal with submissions – Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCAFC 184 applied – requirement to show error in factual determinations – Whiteley Muir & Zwanenberg Ltd v Kerr (1966) 39 ALJR 505 applied
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr T Grimes, counsel
Hall & Wilcox Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr J Malouf, counsel
Law Partners Personal Injury Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Chandi v Busways Group Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 417
MEMBER:	Ms J Snell
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	16 August 2023

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Mr Reji Chandi (the respondent) was employed by Busways Group Pty Ltd (the appellant) as a bus driver. The respondent alleged that on 11 February 2019, while steering a tight steering wheel of a bus to the left, he experienced a click and felt immediate pain in his left shoulder and neck. He further alleged that, as a consequence of the left shoulder injury, he overused his right shoulder, and the overuse caused that shoulder to also became symptomatic.
The claim in respect of the allegation of injury to the left shoulder was accepted by the appellant. The appellant disputed, however, that the respondent suffered injury to the neck and that the right shoulder condition resulted from the left shoulder injury. The appellant further disputed that the respondent suffered any incapacity for work as a result of injury with the appellant and disputed whether the respondent had any entitlement to weekly compensation.
The respondent commenced proceedings and the dispute came to arbitration before a Member of the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) on 24 April 2023. The arbitration hearing was not concluded on the day and the parties were directed to lodge written submissions.
The Member issued a Certificate of Determination on 16 August 2023 in which she found in favour of the respondent in respect of the injury to the neck and the consequential condition in the right shoulder, found that the respondent had no capacity for work, and determined that the respondent was entitled to weekly payments of compensation pursuant to s 38(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
The appellant appeals the decision.

ON THE PAPERS

Section 52(3) of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 provides:
“(3) If the Commission is satisfied that sufficient information has been supplied to it in connection with proceedings, the Commission may exercise functions under this Act…

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 Busways Group Pty Ltd v Chandi

Details

AGLC: Busways Group Pty Ltd v Chandi [2024] NSWPICPD 52
Case: [2024] NSWPICPD 52
Decision Date: 21 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Busways Group Pty Ltd v Chandi, the applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by a workers' compensation tribunal. The applicant, Busways Group, argued that the tribunal had failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, which effectively dismissed the applicant's appeal against a compensation claim. The applicant further contended that the tribunal had not properly considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the tribunal had indeed failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, and whether it had properly considered the applicant's submissions. The court was required to consider the principles set out in Wang v State of New South Wales and Musija v Kresa in determining whether the tribunal's reasons were adequate. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the tribunal had appropriately dealt with the applicant's submissions, as per the case of Applicant WAEE v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs. The applicant also argued that the tribunal had erred in its factual determinations, and the court was required to consider whether such errors were apparent.

The court found that the tribunal had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, and that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the tribunal's factual determinations. The court held that the tribunal had adequately considered the submissions made on behalf of the applicant. In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of providing reasons that allow for meaningful review, while also noting that the applicant must demonstrate an error in the tribunal's reasoning or findings. The applicant's application for judicial review was dismissed.

The court made no orders for costs, and the tribunal's decision remained in place. The applicant was not granted any relief in relation to its claim for judicial review. The case serves as a reminder of the high threshold that must be met for a party to successfully challenge a tribunal's decision on the basis of inadequate reasons or improper consideration of submissions.

Orders