Council of the City of Sydney v Estate of Belinda Jane Griffey (No 2)

Case [2008] NSWWCCPD 115


WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Council of the City of Sydney v Estate of Belinda Jane Griffey and Anor (No 2) [2008] NSWWCCPD 115
APPELLANT: Council of the City of Sydney

FIRST RESPONDENT:

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Christine Griffey and Kevin John Griffey as Executors of the Estate of the late Belinda Jane Griffey

Sydney West Area Health Service

INSURER: Self Insured
FILE NUMBER: WCC18397-06
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 12 March 2008
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 15 October 2008
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Causation; novus actus interveniens; permanent impairment and pain and suffering; sections 66 and 67 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Gary Byron
HEARING: Determined on the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Home Wilkinson Lowry Lawyers
First Respondent:

Burston Cole & Mulock Pty Ltd

Second Respondent:

GIO General Insurance Law Department
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the decision of the Arbitrator dated 12 March 2008 are revoked.  Paragraph (iii) is confirmed.
The Second Respondent is to pay the Appellant’s costs of this appeal.

THE BACKGROUND

  1. On 9 April 2008 the Council of the City of Sydney sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission against a decision, dated 12 March 2008.

  1. The First Respondent to the Appeal was the late Belinda Jane Griffey, but is now Christine Griffey and Kevin John Griffey as Executors of the Estate of the late Belinda Jane Griffey, pursuant to an order made under Rule 18.4(2) and 18.4(3) of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2006, on 17 September 2008.

  1. The Second Respondent is the Sydney West Area Health Service (‘the Hospital’).

  1. All of the relevant background information and details as to: the decision under review (at [40]), the issues in dispute, determination on the papers, grant of leave to appeal, admission of fresh evidence as to the death of Ms Griffey and the details of the grant of probate, evidence in this matter, submissions on appeal, and discussion and findings are set out in the Reasons for decision in Council of the City of Sydney v Estate of Belinda Jane Griffey (No 1) [2008] NSWWCCPD 114.

DECISION

  1. The appeal is successful.  Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the Arbitrator’s decision dated 12 March 2008 are revoked.  Paragraph (iii) is confirmed.

COSTS

  1. The Hospital, the Second Respondent, is to pay the Appellant’s costs of this appeal.

  1. No further order is made as to costs.

Gary Byron

Deputy President  

15 October 2008.

I, MARIE JOHNS, CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND ACCURATE RECORD OF THE REASONS FOR DECISION OF DEPUTY PRESIDENT GARY BYRON OF THE WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION.

ASSOCIATE

Details
AGLC
Council of the City of Sydney v Estate of Belinda Jane Griffey (No 2) [2008] NSWWCCPD 115
Case
[2008] NSWWCCPD 115
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved the Council of the City of Sydney as the insurer and the Estate of Belinda Jane Griffey. The dispute centred around the compensation to be awarded for permanent impairment and pain and suffering following an injury. The case was determined by the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues were whether the Council was liable for the permanent impairment and pain and suffering, and if so, to what extent. The court had to determine if there was a novus actus interveniens that could break the chain of causation, thus absolving the Council of liability. Another issue was the interpretation of sections 66 and 67 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which pertain to the assessment of compensation for such injuries.

The court held that the Council was liable for the claimant's permanent impairment and pain and suffering. It found that there was no intervening act that could absolve the Council of liability. In interpreting the relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the court ruled that the Arbitrator's decision regarding the quantum of compensation was unreasonable. It was noted that the Arbitrator had failed to take into account all relevant factors and had made errors in the application of the law. The court therefore revoked paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the Arbitrator's decision but confirmed paragraph (iii).

Orders

Orders of the court

Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of the decision of the Arbitrator dated 12 March 2008 are revoked. Paragraph (iii) is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.