Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Davis

Link copied
Case Copied 44 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Davis [2011] NSWWCCPD 4
APPELLANT: Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Deanne Davis
INSURER: Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited
FILE NUMBER: A1-6305/10
ARBITRATOR: Ms J Connelly
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 18 October 2010
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 31 January 2011
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Personal injury; s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; whether psychological condition resulted from physical injuries; application of principles in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452; 10 NSWCCR 796; unsatisfactory preparation by worker’s solicitors; unsatisfactory Reply by employer’s solicitors
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Sparke Helmore Lawyers
Respondent: P K Simpson & Co

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Arbitrator’s findings in the Certificate of Determination dated 18 October 2010 are revoked and the following findings made in their place:

“1.  As a result of her injuries on 23 August 2000, the applicant developed a psychological condition, namely chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.”

All other findings and orders in the Certificate of Determination dated 18 October 2010 are confirmed.

BACKGROUND

  1. The respondent worker, Ms Davis, started work with the appellant employer, Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd (Cadbury), as a sales administration clerk in October 1998. She injured her back and neck when she fell from a chair in the course of her employment on 23 August 2000. At the time of the fall, she was 36 weeks pregnant with her first child.

  2. She returned to work the following day, but left after one hour because she was unable to sit due to pain. She returned to work on 1 September 2000 and worked with pain until she took planned maternity leave on 10 September 2000. She gave birth on 25 September 2000.

  3. While on maternity leave, Ms Davis attempted one day’s temporary office work with a different employer, but was unable to cope with the pain. She resigned her employment with Cadbury in 2001 and remained unemployed until 2003, when she fell pregnant and sought part-time employment, which she obtained as a medical secretary at Primary Health Care Medical Centre. She continued that work until September 2008.

  1. In proceedings commenced in the Commission in 2006, Ms Davis sought weekly compensation from 23 August 2000 to date and continuing, and lump sum compensation. She described her injuries as “neck, back, left leg, sexual organs and anxiety and/or depression”. Cadbury settled this claim on 9 October 2006 on the basis that the claim for weekly compensation be discontinued and the claim for lump sum compensation be referred to an Approved Medical Specialist (AMS). Cadbury agreed to make voluntary payments of weekly compensation at follows:

    (a)     $250 per week from 1 December 2000 to 25 November 2003;

    (b)     $250 per week from 1 March 2004 to 28 May 2006;

    (c)     $300 per week from 29 May…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Davis 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
[2011] NSWWCCPD 4
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Davis, the issue before the court was whether the applicant, Davis, had developed a psychological condition following an injury incurred during her employment. The dispute was considered in the Industrial Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Davis claimed that her psychological condition, chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, resulted from a physical injury sustained on 23 August 2000 while employed by Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd. The case involved an appeal against an Arbitrator’s determination that rejected Davis’s claim for compensation under section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The legal issues before the court were primarily whether Davis's psychological condition was a result of the physical injuries sustained during her employment and whether the Arbitrator's findings were correct. The court had to examine whether the psychological condition met the criteria for compensability under section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court also had to consider the case of Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, which established principles for determining whether a psychological condition arising from physical injuries is compensable. Additionally, the court needed to address the adequacy of the submissions made by both parties' solicitors.

In its reasoning, the court found that the Arbitrator’s findings regarding the psychological condition were not supported by the evidence. The court noted that Davis's psychological condition was a direct result of the physical injuries she sustained on 23 August 2000. The court found that the Arbitrator had overlooked key evidence and had failed to properly apply the principles from Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates. Furthermore, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the preparation and submissions of both parties' solicitors. Despite these criticisms, the court confirmed the remaining findings and orders in the Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination. The court revoked paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Arbitrator's findings and substituted them with new findings that acknowledged the applicant's psychological condition as a result of her injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Arbitrator’s findings in the Certificate of Determination dated 18 October 2010 are revoked and the following findings made in their place:

“1. As a result of her injuries on 23 August 2000, the applicant developed a psychological condition, namely chronic adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.”

All other findings and orders in the Certificate of Determination dated 18 October 2010 are confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.