Chep Australia Ltd v Strickland

Chep Australia Ltd has appealed against an Arbitrator's decision to the Supreme Court of Queensland. The matter concerns the assessment of the appellant's liability for a worker's compensation claim made by Mr. Strickland. Mr. Strickland suffered a haemorrhage from a cerebral aneurysm which he claimed was a result of his employment with the appellant. The Arbitrator found that the haemorrhage was a result of a pre-existing condition exacerbated by medication prescribed in the treatment of work-related injuries, and thus, the appellant was liable for the claim. The appellant argued that the Arbitrator erred in admitting fresh evidence and misapplied the causation principles.

The primary issue for the court was whether the Arbitrator was correct in admitting fresh evidence in the form of medical reports and opinions. The court also needed to determine whether the Arbitrator correctly applied the principles of causation in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452. The appellant argued that the Arbitrator should not have admitted the fresh evidence as it was not relevant to the issues before the Arbitrator and could not have reasonably been produced earlier. The respondent contended that the fresh evidence was relevant and material, and the Arbitrator was correct to admit it.

The court found that the Arbitrator correctly exercised their discretion under section 352(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to admit the fresh evidence. The court held that the Arbitrator correctly applied the principles of causation as set out in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates. The court found that the haemorrhage was a result of a pre-existing condition that was exacerbated by medication prescribed in the treatment of work-related injuries. The court held that the haemorrhage was a consequential condition of the work-related injuries, and thus, the appellant was liable for the claim.

The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Arbitrator’s determination of 17 February 2012. The court also ordered the appellant to pay the respondent worker’s costs of the appeal.