COA v Bpi - [2025] NSWPIC 272

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	COA v BPI [2025] NSWPIC 272
APPLICANT:	COA
RESPONDENT:	BPI
MEMBER:	Fiona Seaton
DATE OF DECISION:	17 June 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly benefits and medical or related expenses resulting from alleged psychological injury; whether injury arose out of applicant’s employment and employment was a substantial contributing factor; Held –applicant sustained a psychological injury that arose out of employment and employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury; orders for payment of weekly benefits and medical or related expenses resulting from the injury; publishable decision to be de-identified in accordance with rule 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The Application to Resolve a Dispute is amended to include in the Weekly Benefits Compensation section the pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) amount of $1,502. 2. The applicant sustained a psychological injury on 26 October 2024 that arose out of his employment with the respondent in accordance with s 4(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act). 3. The applicant’s employment with the respondent was a substantial contributing factor to his psychological injury in accordance with s 9A of the 1987 Act. 4. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly benefits at the PIAWE rate of $1,502 for the following periods: (a) 26 October 2024 to 25 January 2025 at $1,426.90 per week pursuant to s 36(1) of the 1987 Act, and (b) 26 January 2025 to 2 February 2025 at $1,201.60 per week pursuant to s 37(1) of the 1987 Act. 5. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical or related expenses resulting from the injury on 26 October 2024 pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act on production of invoices, receipts and/or Medicare notice of charge. 6. The publishable decision is to be de-identified in accordance with r 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, including de-identification of the applicant, the applicant’s sister and the CEO of the respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant [COA] was employed by the respondent [BPI] as an unpaid Marketing Intern, Marketing Officer and Finance/Student Support Coordinator between November 2022 and October 2024.
The applicant’s sister who was also employed by the respondent alleges she was sexually assaulted by the chief executive officer (CEO) of the respondent while on a business trip in Perth on about 26 October 2024.
The applicant was advised of the incident by his sister and flew to Perth on 26 October 2024. He met with his sister and two other owners of the respondent who had travelled to Perth over the next two days due to the incident.
As a result of the incident the applicant alleges he suffered a psychological injury. He has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder and adjustment disorders.
The applicant claimed weekly benefits and medical or related expenses on
12 November…

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 COA v Bpi 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 272
Decision Date: 17 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a claim by an applicant, identified as COA, for weekly benefits and medical or related expenses pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant alleged that they sustained a psychological injury while in employment and sought to establish that the injury arose out of their employment, with their employment being a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The defendant in this matter was Bpi, the employer against whom the claim was made.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the applicant's psychological injury arose out of their employment and whether their employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. This involved assessing the evidence presented regarding the nature of the applicant’s employment, the circumstances leading to the alleged psychological injury, and the extent to which the employment contributed to the injury. The court needed to consider relevant provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, as well as any applicable case law and statutory interpretations.

The court found that the applicant had sustained a psychological injury that arose out of their employment and that their employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The evidence presented demonstrated that the applicant's work-related duties and conditions played a significant role in the development of their psychological condition. The court was satisfied that the applicant had met the necessary criteria under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to be entitled to weekly benefits and medical or related expenses resulting from the injury. Consequently, the court ordered the payment of these benefits and expenses to the applicant.

In accordance with rule 132 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021, the decision made by the court is to be de-identified for publication purposes. This ensures that the privacy of the parties involved is maintained while allowing for the dissemination of legal principles and outcomes in a manner that is informative for the legal profession.

Orders