Dayton v Coles Supermarkets Pty Ltd

The appeal in *Dayton v Coles Supermarkets Pty Ltd* concerned a claim for workers' compensation for schizophrenia allegedly caused by stressful events experienced in the workplace. The appellant, Dayton, sought compensation from the respondent, Coles Supermarkets Pty Ltd, for this condition. The matter was heard by Meagher and Giles JJA, and Davies AJA.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Dayton's employment was a substantial contributing factor to his schizophrenia, and what the meaning of "substantial" was in the context of section 9A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW). The court also had to determine whether Dayton had suffered an "injury" as defined by the Act, and whether the acts giving rise to his condition arose out of or in the course of his employment.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of "substantial" as requiring a significant or material contribution, rather than merely a minor or incidental one. Applying this interpretation to the facts, the court found that Dayton's employment had not been a substantial contributing factor to his schizophrenia. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.