BVB v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare) - [2025] NSWPIC 299

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	BVB v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare) & Ors [2025] NSWPIC 299
APPLICANT:	BVB
RESPONDENT:	Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare) BUC
MEMBER:	Fiona Seaton
DATE OF DECISION:	26 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	Workplace Injury Management And Workers Compensation Act 1998; claim made for weekly benefits; credit; whether applicant a worker; failure to give notice of injury/make claim; whether applicant sustained a psychological injury; section 344 costs application; Held – applicant was a worker and sustained a psychological injury; no adverse credit finding; any failure to give notice/make claim not a bar to recovery; application for costs indemnity under section 344(1)(c) declined; first respondent to pay applicant weekly benefits.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. At the time of her injury on 14 January 2023 the applicant was a worker within the meaning of s 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) in the employ of the second respondent. 2. Any failure by the applicant to give notice of her claim or to make a claim within the times prescribed in ss 254 and 261 of the 1998 Act is not a bar to recovery of compensation. 3. The applicant sustained a psychological injury as a result of the incident on 14 January 2023 pursuant to ss 4 and 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act). 4. A finding is made that the second respondent did not hold a valid New South Wales workers compensation policy at the time of the injury. 5. The applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings rate is calculated at $1,800. 6. The first respondent is to pay the applicant weekly benefits compensation as follows; (a) 10 October 2023 to 9 January 2024 at 95% of $1,800 or $1,710 pursuant to s 36(1) of the 1987 Act as indexed, and (b) 10 January 2024 to date and continuing at 80% of $1,800 or $1,440 pursuant to s 37(1) of the 1987 Act as indexed. 7. The publishable decision is to be de-identified in accordance with r 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, including de-identification of all parties, entities or individuals named in the proceedings.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant Ms BVB alleges she was employed by the second respondent as a night manager and receptionist on 14 January 2023.
On that date a man entered the premises where she was working and behaved in an erratic and threatening manner. After securing the safety of other people on the premises the applicant was chased and threatened by the intruder until he was subdued by police.
A claim was made by the applicant on 23 October 2023 for weekly benefits compensation for the period from 10 October 2023 to date and continuing as a result of a psychological injury arising from the events of 14 January 2023.
The first respondent, the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare), issued a notice under s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) on 8…

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 BVB v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare) 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] NSWPIC 299
Decision Date: 26 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant, BVB, lodged a claim for weekly benefits against the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare) under the Workplace Injury Management And Workers Compensation Act 1998. The dispute centred around whether the applicant was classified as a worker under the Act, whether they had sustained a psychological injury, and if they were entitled to weekly benefits. Additionally, the case involved an application for indemnity of costs under section 344(1)(c) of the Act.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria to be recognised as a worker under the Act. It also had to ascertain whether the applicant had indeed sustained a psychological injury, and if any failure to give notice of the injury or make a claim within the specified timeframe would bar the applicant from receiving benefits. Furthermore, the court needed to evaluate the application for costs indemnity under section 344(1)(c) of the Act.

The court found that the applicant was indeed a worker under the Act and had sustained a psychological injury. It ruled that the failure to give notice of the injury or make a claim did not preclude the applicant from receiving benefits. The court declined the application for costs indemnity under section 344(1)(c) of the Act and ordered the first respondent to pay the applicant weekly benefits.

In conclusion, the court recognised the applicant as a worker and acknowledged the psychological injury sustained. The court dismissed the notion that the failure to give notice or make a claim would bar the applicant from receiving benefits. The first respondent was ordered to pay the applicant weekly benefits, and the application for costs indemnity under section 344(1)(c) of the Act was declined.

Orders