Catlow v Ventia Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 331

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Catlow v Ventia Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 331
APPLICANT:	Julian Catlow
RESPONDENT:	Ventia Australia Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	John Turner
DATE OF DECISION:	09 July 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; injury; section 4; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1984], and Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1985] applied; Held – the applicant did not sustain injury as claimed; there is an award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Application to Resolve a Dispute amended to include a claim for a general order for medical and treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 . 2. The applicant did not sustain injury as claimed. 3. There is an award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Julian Catlow (applicant) has brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) in which he alleges that in the course of his employment with Ventia Australia Pty Limited (respondent) he grazed his toe on or about 8 May 2024. In the alternative the applicant alleges that he suffered a disease injury with a deemed date of injury of 8 May 2024. The applicant alleges that he developed cellulitis and was off work as a result.
The applicant claims weekly compensation pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) from 8 May 2024 to 8 July 2024. The Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) was amended without objection at the time of the conciliation hearing to include a claim for a general order for medical and treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act.
The applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings is agreed by the parties at $1,111.28.
The applicant commenced employment with the respondent as a cleaner on 28 March 2024. It is the applicant’s evidence that in addition to his cleaning duties he was also required to close all the doors and windows, lock the building and ensure that all staff had left the premises before locking up and setting the alarm.[1]
[1] ARD p. 2.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a)    whether the applicant sustained an injury – ss 4 and 9 of the 1987 Act;
(b)    substantial contributing factor – s 9A of the 1987 Act;
(c)    disease provision – ss 15 and 16 of the 1987 Act;
(d)    capacity/incapacity for work – s 33 of the 1987 Act, and
(e) whether claimed treatment is reasonably necessary as a result of injury – s 60 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The matter was listed for conciliation conference/arbitration hearing before me on 16 June 2025. Mr Ross Hanrahan, counsel, instructed by Keen Lawyers, appeared for the applicant, who was present. Mr Daniel Stiles, counsel, instructed by Sparke Helmore Lawyers, appeared for the respondent. The proceedings were conducted in-person. I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of…

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 Catlow v Ventia Australia Pty Ltd 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 331
Decision Date: 09 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Catlow, sought compensation from the respondent, Ventia Australia Pty Ltd, under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, alleging injury sustained during the course of employment. The dispute was heard and determined by the court, which had to decide whether the applicant's claimed injury met the criteria for compensation under the Act. The respondent denied the applicant's claims, arguing that no injury was sustained as alleged.

The court was required to assess whether the applicant's injury was a result of an accident arising out of or in the course of employment, as stipulated in section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court considered relevant case law, including Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates and Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1984] and [1985], to determine the applicable legal principles. It examined the nature and origin of the injury, the circumstances surrounding the alleged incident, and the evidence presented by both parties.

After careful consideration of the evidence and legal principles, the court found that the applicant did not sustain the injury as claimed. The court determined that the injury did not meet the criteria for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Consequently, the court dismissed the applicant's claim and awarded costs to the respondent.

In summary, the court ruled that the applicant's claim for compensation was not substantiated, and the respondent was awarded costs. This decision was based on the court's determination that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment as required by the Act. The court's findings were influenced by the established legal principles and the evidence presented during the proceedings.

Orders