CLA v BUU - [2025] NSWPIC 259

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	CLA v BUU [2025] NSWPIC 259
APPLICANT:	CLA
RESPONDENT:	BUU
MEMBER:	Gaius Whiffin
DATE OF DECISION:	11 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for psychological injury; claims for weekly benefits compensation and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60; whether applicant sustained a psychological injury in accordance with section 4 as a result of traumatic incidents experienced during course of employment with respondent; consideration of credit to be afforded to the applicant as a witness; whether expert opinion provided in a ‘fair climate’; consideration of need for actual persuasion to be felt in order for applicant to satisfy onus of proof; Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes, Drca v KAB Seating Systems Pty Ltd, Malco Engineering Pty Ltd v Ferreira, ACW v ACX, Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Limited, Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Limited, and Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Limited considered; Held – applicant failed to satisfy onus of proving he sustained a psychological injury (in accordance with section 4(b)) arising out of traumatic events experienced during the course of employment with the respondent; award for respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant has failed to satisfy his onus of proving that he sustained a psychological injury (in accordance with s 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the Act)) arising out of traumatic events which he experienced during the course of his employment with the respondent. 2. There will be an award in favour of the respondent in relation to the claims made by the applicant for weekly benefits compensation and expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Act. 3. In accordance with cl 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, I order that the entirety of this publishable decision be de-identified before it is published. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

[CLA] (the applicant) is 30-years-old. He worked for the [BUU] (the respondent) from the date of his attestation in around April 2018 until he resigned from that employment effective as at 7 August 2023. At the time of his resignation however, he had not worked for the respondent since 22 February 2023, and he had been criminally charged on 17 March 2023. The criminal charges related to his conduct on 22 January 2023.
The applicant alleges that during the course of his employment with the respondent, he had experienced numerous traumatic incidents, which have led to him sustaining a psychological injury. He claimed compensation in this regard when he lodged a P902 form with the respondent, together with an accompanying certificate of capacity, on 17 March 2023.
The respondent issued a notice denying liability under s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) for the applicant's claim in relation to his alleged psychological injury, dated 9 June 2023. It then reviewed its denial of liability…

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 CLA v BUU

Details

AGLC: CLA v BUU [2025] NSWPIC 259
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 259
Decision Date: 11 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of CLA versus BUU, the applicant sought to recover workers' compensation for a psychological injury sustained during their employment with the respondent. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had indeed suffered a psychological injury as defined under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and, if so, whether they were entitled to weekly benefits compensation and treatment expenses under section 60. The matter was heard and determined by the relevant tribunal.

The primary legal issues that the tribunal had to decide were whether the applicant had sustained a psychological injury in accordance with section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and if so, whether they had discharged the onus of proving the injury arose out of traumatic incidents experienced during the course of employment with the respondent. A further issue was the extent to which the tribunal should afford credit to the applicant's evidence, particularly in light of expert opinions provided. The tribunal also needed to consider whether the applicant needed to be actually persuaded of their own injury, or if some lesser degree of persuasion was sufficient.

The tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the onus of proving that they had sustained a psychological injury in accordance with section 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, arising out of traumatic events experienced during the course of their employment with the respondent. The tribunal gave careful consideration to the evidence presented and the weight to be afforded to it, including expert opinions, and determined that the applicant had not met the required standard of proof. As a result, the tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims, finding in favour of the respondent and awarding costs.

Orders