Coverbid Pty Ltd t/as Eclipse Couriers v Geary

Link copied
Case Copied 19 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Coverbid Pty Ltd t/as Eclipse Couriers v Geary [2012] NSWWCCPD 36
APPELLANT: Coverbid Pty Limited t/as Eclipse Couriers
RESPONDENT: Francis Geary
INSURER: Allianz
FILE NUMBER: A1-9793/11
ARBITRATOR: Ms J Connelly
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 28 March 2012
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 6 July 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Contractor taken to be worker; Sch 1 cl 2 to the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; sufficiency of reasons
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting President Kevin O'Grady
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: DLA Piper Australia
Respondent: Thurlow Fisher Lawyers

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.       The Arbitrator’s findings, orders and determinations recorded in Certificate of Determination dated 28 March 2012 are confirmed.

2.       The appellant is to pay the worker’s costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Francis Neil Geary was engaged as a courier driver by Coverbid Pty Ltd trading as Eclipse Couriers (the appellant) on 8 October 2009. Mr Geary performed that work until he was injured on 14 January 2010. Mr Geary ceased work and consulted his general practitioner, Dr Hettiaratchi. He was referred to Dr Popoff, orthopaedic surgeon, for investigation of a right shoulder injury. Mr Geary has undergone two surgical procedures to that shoulder. It is alleged that the right shoulder injury has given rise to whole person impairment.

  2. Mr Geary made a claim for workers compensation benefits against the appellant. That claim was declined upon the basis that, at the time of injury, Mr Geary was not a worker within the meaning of that term as defined in the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act).

  3. An Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) was filed with the Commission on Mr Geary’s behalf in November 2011. That Application sought orders for weekly payments, medical expenses and a lump sum in respect of the alleged whole person impairment. The Application came before Arbitrator Connelly for conciliation and arbitration on 23 February 2012. Mr Geary amended the Application by withdrawal of the claim in respect of ongoing weekly payments.

  4. The matter proceeded to arbitration and the Arbitrator reserved her decision. A Certificate of Determination was issued on 28 March 2012 accompanied by a Statement of Reasons (Reasons). That Certificate made the following notation, orders and determinations:

    “The Commission determines:

    1.       By consent the claim for weekly compensation is discontinued.

    2.       The Application to Admit Late Documents filed by the respondent on 16 December 2011 is admitted into evidence.

    3. On 14 January 2010 the applicant was a deemed worker under clause 2 of Schedule 1 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 when he suffered an injury to his right shoulder, arm and hand.

    4.       The permanent impairment dispute is remitted to the Registrar for referral to an Approved Medical Specialist for assessment of whole person impairment as follows:

    Date of injury: 14 January 2010
    Body part referred: Right upper extremity
    Documents to be…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Coverbid Pty Ltd t/as Eclipse Couriers v Geary 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
[2012] NSWWCCPD 36
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Coverbid Pty Ltd, trading as Eclipse Couriers, appealed against an arbitrator's decision which held that a driver, Mr Geary, who was engaged by Coverbid to provide courier services was to be considered an employee for the purposes of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The dispute was heard in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary issue before the tribunal was whether the arbitrator's determination that Mr Geary was an employee under Schedule 1 clause 2 of the Act was supported by sufficient reasons.

The tribunal found that the arbitrator had failed to provide adequate reasons for his decision, particularly in relation to the application of the control test, which is a key factor in determining employment status. The tribunal held that the control test required a comprehensive analysis of the various factors that contributed to the overall employment relationship, and the arbitrator had not sufficiently explained how he had applied this test in reaching his conclusion. As a result, the tribunal found that the arbitrator's decision was not supported by sufficient reasons.

Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the arbitrator's findings, orders and determinations as recorded in the Certificate of Determination dated 28 March 2012. The appellant was ordered to pay the worker's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Arbitrator’s findings, orders and determinations recorded in Certificate of Determination dated 28 March 2012 are confirmed.

2. The appellant is to pay the worker’s costs of the appeal.

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.