Dayton v Coles Supermarkets Pty Ltd

CITATION:	Dayton v Coles Supermarkets P/L [2001] NSWCA 153
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40294/00
HEARING DATE(S):	09/05/01
JUDGMENT DATE:	1 June 2001
PARTIES :	Arnold Dayton v Coles Supermarkets Pty Limited
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Giles JA at 20; Davies AJA at 35

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	Compensation Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	30427/99
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Burke CCJ

COUNSEL:	A: Mr P Blacket SC/M Thompson R: Mr J Hislop QC/B Roche
SOLICITORS:	A: RTW & Associates R: Lander & Rogers
CATCHWORDS:	Workers Compensation - compensation sought for schizophrenia caused by stressful events in the workplace - whether employment substantial contributing factor to injury - meaning of 'substantial' in Workers Compensation Act (1987), s9A - whether worker suffered an 'injury' - whether acts arising out of or in the course of employment - appeal dismissed.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) s 9A
CASES CITED:	Tillmanns Butcheries Pty Ltd v Australian Meat Industry Employees' Union (1979) 27 ALR 367 Zinc Corporation Ltd v Scarce (1995) 12 NSWCCR 566
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs.

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

40294/00

MEAGHER JA

GILES JA

DAVIES AJA

Friday, 1 June 2001

ARNOLD DAYTON v COLES SUPERMARKETS PTY LIMITED

JUDGMENT

FACTS

The appellant was employed at the Pagewood store of the respondent, Coles Supermarkets Pty Limited. He alleged that stressful events which occurred at work caused him to develop schizophrenia, and sought workers’ compensation. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claim on the basis that the stressful events complained of were not a substantial contributing factor to the appellant’s injury. His Honour found that the major causes of the appellant’s illness were a genetic or biological susceptibility to schizophrenia and his prolonged use of marijuana. The first ground of appeal was that the trial judge erred in the meaning he gave to ‘substantial’. His Honour’s finding as to role of marijuana in the aetiology of the illness formed the second ground of appeal.

HELD

per Meagher JA & Giles JA (Davies AJA not expressing an opinion):

(i) The trial judge’s finding that the work stresses were a “rather minor” factor in the aetiology of the illness is a finding of fact which is immune to challenge.

Per Meagher JA, Giles JA & Davies AJA:

(ii) The trial judge was correct in finding that the work stresses were not a substantial contributing factor to the appellant’s development of schizophrenia.

Per Meagher JA: The appellant’s submission that the fact that a factor was ‘minor’

does not prevent it from being a substantial one should be rejected.

Per Giles JA: A contributing factor which is minor in comparison with two other

substantial factors, is not a substantial contributing factor.

Per Davies AJA: The words ‘substantial contributing factor’ in s9A of the Act

require that compensation be paid only when the employment contributed to the

injury in a manner that is real and of substance.

Per Meagher JA & Giles JA (Davies AJA not expressing an opinion):