Diomidhous v Global Express Courier - [2022] NSWPIC 412

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Diomidhous v Global Express Courier [2022] NSWPIC 412
APPLICANT:	Andromides Diomidhous
RESPONDENT:	Global Express Courier
MEMBER:	John Isaksen
DATE OF DECISION:	27 July 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for weekly payments of compensation and medical expenses for psychological injury; whether the applicant was a worker or deemed worker; reference to Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co P/L, On Call Interpreters and Translators Agency P/L, and Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personal Contracting P/L on issue of worker; reference to Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills and Amalgamated Pest Control P/L v Chaaya on the issue of deemed worker; whether applicant sustained injury in the course of his employment; reference to Attorney General’s Department v K on issue of injury; section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) defence raised by employer that psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action in respect to transfer; Held – applicant was a worker as provided for by section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, or in the alternative a deemed worker; applicant sustained psychological injury by way of a disease as provided for by section 4 (b)(i) of the 1987 Act; respondent has failed to establish that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken with respect to transfer; applicant has had no current work capacity since 2 February 2021 and award for weekly payments and medical expenses made accordingly.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant was a worker who worked under a contract of service with the respondent when he sustained a psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent. 2. The applicant also meets the definition of a deemed worker within the meaning of cl 2 of Schedule 1 of the Workplace Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act). 3. The applicant sustained a psychological injury pursuant to s 4 (b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), with a deemed date of injury of 2 February 2021. 4. The respondent has failed to establish a defence pursuant to s 11A (1) of the 1987 Act. 5. That the applicant has had no current work capacity since 2 February 2021. The Commission orders: 1. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly payments of compensation as follows: (a) $1,356.88 per week from 2 February 2021 to 3 May 2021 pursuant to s 36 (1) of the 1987 Act, and (b) $1,142.64 per week from 4 May 2021 to date and continuing pursuant to s 37 (1) of the 1987 Act. 2. The respondent is to pay the cost of the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical expenses for treatment for his psychological injury pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Andromides Diomidhous, claims that he sustained a psychological injury while working as a courier with the respondent, Global Express Courier.
The applicant claims…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Diomidhous v Global Express Courier 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: [2022] NSWPIC 412
Decision Date: 27 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Diomidhous, the applicant, brought a claim against Global Express Courier, the respondent, seeking weekly payments of compensation and reimbursement of medical expenses arising from a psychological injury sustained during his employment. The matter was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland. The central legal issues revolved around whether Diomidhous was a worker or a deemed worker under the applicable statutes, if the injury was sustained in the course of his employment, and whether the injury was caused by reasonable action taken with respect to his transfer.

The court examined the definition of a worker under section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, and considered whether Diomidhous qualified as a deemed worker under the relevant provisions. The court referenced several precedents, including Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co P/L, On Call Interpreters and Translators Agency P/L, and Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personal Contracting P/L, to determine the worker status. The court also looked at Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills and Amalgamated Pest Control P/L v Chaaya to address the deemed worker issue. Furthermore, the court assessed whether the psychological injury was an injury as defined in the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and whether it was sustained in the course of employment. The court relied on Attorney General’s Department v K to evaluate the causation of the injury.

The court found that Diomidhous was indeed a worker, either as defined in section 4 of the 1998 Act or as a deemed worker. The court determined that the psychological injury qualified as an injury under the 1987 Act and that it was sustained in the course of employment. The court also concluded that the employer had not established that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken in respect of the transfer. Given that Diomidhous had no current work capacity since 2 February 2021, the court awarded weekly payments and medical expenses accordingly.

Orders