Chong v Zetciti WP Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWPIC 491

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Chong v Zetciti WP Pty Ltd & Ors [2023] NSWPIC 491
APPLICANT:	Ai Tee Chong
FIRST RESPONDENT: SECOND RESPONDENT: THIRD RESPONDENT: FOURTH RESPONDENT:	Zetciti WP Pty Ltd Si Ying Goh Si Rong Goh Hock Meng Goh
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	20 September 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim by parents and sisters of deceased worker for lump sum death benefit and interest; worker suffered from Brugada syndrome; worker was employed as a pick packer and sustained a heart attack injury having run after shoplifters who had stolen from the first respondent’s business; first respondent disputed injury; substantial contributing factor to injury; main contributing factor to injury; that the worker’s employment gave rise to a significantly greater risk of the heart attack than had he not been employed in employment of that nature; and that the worker’s death resulted from a work-related injury; consideration of Rail Services Australia v Dimovski & Anor, Bindah v Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd, EMI Australia Limited v Bes, Renew God’s Program Pty Ltd v Kim, SB v XFPL, De Silva v Secretary, Department of Finance, Services and Innovation, Trustees of the Society of St Vincent de Paul (NSW) v Maxwell James Kear as administrator of the estate of Anthony John Kear, Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Limited trading as Commander Australia Pty Limited, Tarry v Warringah Shire Council, Zinc Corporation Ltd v Scarce, Kasim v Busways Blacktown Pty Ltd, and Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice v Galea; Held – worker sustained personal injury (heart attack injury) arising out of or in course of employment, to which employment was a substantial contributing factor; employment did not give rise to a significantly greater risk of the heart attack than had the worker not been employed in employment of that nature; the worker’s death did not result from work-related injury; award for first respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. There is an award for the first respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The worker, Jun Liang Goh (Jun) was employed by the first respondent, Zetciti WP Pty Ltd (Zetciti), as a pick packer at its Asian grocery store. His employer and his colleagues knew him as Liang, but as his mother called him Jun, I have used that name. I have referred to Jun and various members of his family by their given names to avoid confusion, meaning no disrespect.
Jun suffered a cardiac arrest on 27 June 2020, after following (to use a neutral term) from the store some shoplifters, who had stolen alcohol. He died on 2 July 2020.
The applicant, Ms Chong, is the worker’s mother. The second and third respondents, Si Ying and Si Rong, are his sisters, and the fourth respondent, Hock Meng, is his father. They have made a claim pursuant to s 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for the lump sum death benefit of $827,400, and interest on the lump sum.
On 25…

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 Chong v Zetciti WP 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: [2023] NSWPIC 491
Decision Date: 20 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chong and others, as the parents and sisters of a deceased worker, sought a lump sum death benefit and interest from Zetciti WP Pty Ltd. The deceased worker, who suffered from Brugada syndrome, experienced a heart attack after running after shoplifters who had stolen from the employer’s business. The employer contested the claim, arguing that the worker's employment was not the main contributing factor to the injury, that the employment did not significantly increase the risk of the heart attack, and that the worker’s death did not result from a work-related injury.

The court was tasked with determining whether the worker's employment as a pick packer substantially contributed to the heart attack, whether the employment posed a significantly greater risk of the heart attack compared to non-employment, and whether the worker's death was a result of a work-related injury. The court examined several precedents, including Rail Services Australia v Dimovski & Anor, Bindah v Carter Holt Harvey Woodproducts Australia Pty Ltd, and others, to understand the legal criteria for establishing a work-related injury.

After considering the evidence and legal precedents, the court concluded that the worker had indeed sustained a personal injury (heart attack) arising from or in the course of employment. However, the court found that while the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, it did not significantly increase the risk of the heart attack. Furthermore, the court determined that the worker's death did not result from a work-related injury. Therefore, the award was made in favour of the employer.

The final orders of the court dismissed the claims by the worker’s parents and sisters, affirming that the employer was not liable for the lump sum death benefit or interest.

Orders