Fairfield City Council v Arduca

Fairfield City Council (the Council) sought leave to appeal from a decision of a Presidential member of the Workers Compensation Commission. The dispute concerned a worker's entitlement to weekly compensation. The Council contended that the worker was disentitled to compensation under section 57 of the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998* (NSW) due to an alleged unreasonable failure to continue in employment, and that the provision of "suitable duties" under an injury management plan was a relevant consideration. The Council also argued that the Presidential member failed to properly consider its argument regarding whether it had given notice disputing liability in accordance with section 74 of the Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the worker had been denied procedural fairness by the Arbitrator, and whether the Presidential member had erred in their review of the Arbitrator's decision, particularly concerning the application of sections 57 and 74 of the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998* (NSW). The court was required to determine if the Presidential member had adequately engaged with the substance of the Council's arguments regarding the worker's entitlement to compensation and the adequacy of the Council's dispute notice.

The court considered the arguments presented by both parties. It was noted that the Presidential member had reviewed the Arbitrator's decision and made findings on the issues raised. The court ultimately concluded that there were no grounds to grant leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal was refused, and the applicant, Fairfield City Council, was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal.