Legal Research
Cases
Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd v Trad

Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd v Trad

Case [2023] NSWPICPD 79 13 December 2023

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd v Trad [2023] NSWPICPD 79
APPELLANT:	Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Mark Trad
INSURER:	Employers Mutual NSW Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W6207/22
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Phillips
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	13 December 2023
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Certificate of Determination dated 24 January 2023 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – approach to evidence and pleadings – guiding principles and practice and procedure – sections 42 and 43 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 – rule 73 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 – Commission is not bound by strict pleadings – Tray Fit Pty Ltd v Cairney [2015] NSWWCCPD 2; The King v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; ex parte Bott [1933] HCA 30; 50 CLR 228 applied
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr J McEnaney, counsel
Gair Legal
Respondent:
Mr B McManamey, counsel
Turner Freeman Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL
MEMBER:	Ms R Homan
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	24 January 2023

INTRODUCTION

The respondent worker, Mr Mark Trad, commenced employment with the appellant, Chubb Fire and Security Pty Limited, on 1 May 2006 as a Portable Service Technician and worked continuously in that role up until his injury on 20 January 2022. On that date, whilst in the course of his employment with the appellant, the respondent was walking across the carpark area at Mount Druitt Hospital to service a parked bus, when he suffered injury to his left knee/left leg. He attended the emergency department at Mount Druitt Hospital and after being discharged, later attended upon his general practitioner and was referred for an MRI scan of his injured left knee and leg. The MRI revealed a vertical tear of the medial meniscus and moderate osteoarthritic changes in the left knee.[1]
[1] Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), pp 39–40.
The respondent made a claim for compensation which was rejected by the appellant by notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) issued on 4 April 2022.[2] This notice disputed liability pursuant to ss 4, 9A, 33 and 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), on the basis that the injury sustained while walking through the carpark could have occurred anywhere, at any time, and thus, employment was not a substantial contributing factor. In this notice, the described injury in dispute was a ‘strain’. This decision was confirmed after an internal review of the decision on 12 July 2022.
[2] ARD, p 7.
The respondent therefore brought proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) seeking weekly compensation and an order for the payment of his expenses under section 60 of the 1987 Act.
The matter was heard by Member R Homan, a member in the Commission’s Workers Compensation Division, on 8 December 2022. At arbitration, the appellant’s dispute of “injury” as defined in s 4…

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.

Continue reading Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd v Trad

Details

AGLC: Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd v Trad [2023] NSWPICPD 79
Case: [2023] NSWPICPD 79
Decision Date: 13 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Chubb Fire & Security Pty Ltd v Trad, the dispute arose from a claim for workers' compensation made by the applicant, Trad, following an injury sustained during the course of employment. The matter was heard by the Personal Injury Commission, which is tasked with adjudicating on personal injury claims in New South Wales. The central issue for determination was the appropriate approach to evidence and pleadings in workers' compensation proceedings, particularly under sections 42 and 43 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 and rule 73 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021.

The court was required to consider whether it should be bound by strict pleadings and how to apply the guiding principles and practice concerning the admissibility and weight of evidence. This involved examining previous cases such as Tray Fit Pty Ltd v Cairney and The King v War Pensions Entitlement Appeal Tribunal; ex parte Bott, which establish that the Commission is not constrained by strict pleadings and can consider relevant evidence regardless of whether it was formally pleaded. The court also needed to determine how to balance the procedural fairness to the parties with the expeditious resolution of the claim.

The Commission determined that it was not bound by strict pleadings, in line with established jurisprudence. It emphasised that the guiding principles and practice in workers' compensation proceedings should focus on ensuring a fair and just resolution of the claim. The Commission held that it could consider all relevant evidence, even if it was not formally pleaded, and weigh this evidence according to its probative value. By applying this approach, the Commission aimed to achieve a just outcome while maintaining procedural fairness. Ultimately, the Commission's decision provided clarity on the approach to evidence and pleadings in workers' compensation matters, reaffirming the principles that underpin the Commission's role in resolving such disputes.

Orders