| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER | |
CITATION: | CSR Limited v Hayes [2025] NSWPICPD 51 |
APPELLANT: | CSR Limited |
RESPONDENT: | Jeffrey Hayes |
INSURER: | Self-insured |
FILE NUMBER: | A1-W2192/24 |
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | President Judge Phillips |
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 4 July 2025 |
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1. The Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 12 September 2024 is confirmed. |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION – procedural fairness – obligation of Member to deal with submissions – adequacy of Member’s reasons – Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] HCA 26; Wang v State of NSW [2019] NSWCA 263 considered and applied – Kowalski v Repatriation Commission [2011] FCAFC 43 considered and applied |
HEARING: | On the papers |
REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: |
| Mr T Grimes, counsel | |
| Hall & Wilcox Lawyers | |
| Respondent: | |
| Mr S Moffett, counsel | |
| RMB Lawyers | |
DECISION UNDER APPEAL: | |
MEMBER: | Ms J Snell |
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION: | 12 September 2024 |
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Mr Jeffrey Hayes (the respondent) was employed by CSR Limited (the appellant) as a National Logicwall Business Improvement Manager from 2016 until he was terminated from his employment on 18 May 2022. The role was primarily office-based, however, the respondent assisted with maintenance duties when required.[1]
[1] Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 6.
On 8 May 2021, the respondent states he injured his right shoulder in the following manner. The respondent was standing on the third rung of a step ladder with one foot on the ladder and the other on top of an air dryer. His foot slipped and as he was falling, he reached for an air line with his right-hand causing his right arm to overextend. He fell to the ground landing on his left leg while his right foot remained on the air dryer. He felt immediate pain in his right shoulder region and right knee.[2] The respondent was 60 years of age when the incident occurred.
[2] ARD, pp 8–9.
The respondent reported the injury to the appellant on Monday, 10 May 2021. He did not require any time off work and did not seek any medical treatment apart from one consultation with an on-site physiotherapist arranged by the appellant approximately three months later. It was not until the respondent’s employment was terminated in May 2022 that he sought medical treatment and subsequently lodged a workers compensation claim in June 2022 for injuries to his right shoulder, right bicep and left knee.[3] The respondent has not worked since his employment was terminated by the appellant. The termination of the respondent’s employment was unrelated to the injuries subject to these proceedings.
[3] ARD, pp 22–29.
The appellant issued a notice under s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 29 August 2022 denying liability for the respondent’s injuries.[4] The appellant issued a further s 78 notice on 23 November 2022.[5] The notices denied injury or that employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. Sections…
Continue reading CSR Limited v Hayes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- CSR Limited v Hayes [2025] NSWPICPD 51
- Case
- [2025] NSWPICPD 51
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court had to determine whether the Member’s handling of submissions complied with the principles of procedural fairness. Additionally, the court examined whether the reasons provided by the Member were adequate to justify the decision. The court considered relevant case law, including Dranichnikov v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Wang v State of NSW, to assess the adequacy of the Member’s reasons. The court also took into account the decision in Kowalski v Repatriation Commission to further understand the obligations of the Member in dealing with submissions and providing reasons.
The Queensland Court of Appeal found that the Member had indeed failed to adequately address CSR Limited’s submissions, resulting in a breach of procedural fairness. The court also determined that the reasons provided by the Member were insufficient to justify the decision. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the decision of the Workers Compensation Nolition Board of Queensland was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Board for reconsideration in light of the findings of the Court of Appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.