Legal Research
Cases
Federation Council v Carpenter

Federation Council v Carpenter

Case [2025] NSWPICPD 16 3 March 2025

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Federation Council v Carpenter [2025] NSWPICPD 16
APPELLANT:	Federation Council
RESPONDENT:	Noel Eric Carpenter
INSURER:	StateCover Mutual Ltd
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W8665/23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Michael Snell
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	3 March 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The monetary thresholds in s 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 have not been met and there is no right of appeal.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Section 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; O’Callaghan v Energy World Corporation Ltd [2016] NSWWCCPD 1; Abu-Ali v Martin-Brower Australia Pty Ltd [2017] NSWWCCPD 25; Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Grigor [2017] NSWWCCPD 23; Flying Solo Properties Pty Ltd v Collet [2015] NSWWCCPD 14; 16 DDCR 223
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr P Stockley, counsel
Kemp & Co Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr D Adhikary, counsel
Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Carpenter v Federation Council [2024] NSWPIC 199
SENIOR MEMBER:	Ms K Haddock
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	22 April 2024

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Noel Carpenter (the worker/respondent) commenced working with the Federation Council (the employer/appellant) when it was known as the Urana Shire Council, in about 1988/89. He was initially a labourer, he later obtained ‘tickets’ as a truck driver and a plant operator, and most recently was a gardener. He suffered an injury to his back (which is not disputed) on 20 July 2005 when he fell through a square metal manhole cover.[1] The worker said that he never made “some sort of full recovery” and was not free of pain and discomfort.[2] He said his “level of pain fluctuated over the years”. He said that he “had to carefully manage himself over many years to make sure he could keep working”.[3] The worker saw many doctors over the years, whose reports are carefully summarised in the Senior Member’s reasons.
[1] Statement of Noel Carpenter (the worker), 12/9/23, [1]–[3], Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 2.
[2] Worker’s statement 28/2/24, [2], [11], Application to Admit Late Documents (AALD) 29/2/24, Carpenter v Federation Council [2024] NSWPIC 199 (reasons), [47], [59].
[3] Reasons, [35].
Dr Casikar, neurosurgeon, examined the worker at the insurer’s request and reported on 30 November 2022. Dr Casikar considered the worker had suffered a workplace aggravation of pre-existing degenerative disease of his lumbar spine, and that the effects of the aggravation had ceased. He described the left-sided disc protrusion at L5/S1 as “consistent with the natural progression of the degenerative disease”, not caused by the injury.[4]
[4] Reply, p 17.
Dr McMahon, neurosurgeon, reported on 5 December 2022 that the worker had “ongoing lumbar back pain and left-sided sciatica secondary to L4/5 intervertebral disc degeneration and left-sided disc prolapse”. Dr McMahon considered that lumbar fusion surgery was warranted and referred the worker to Dr Rogers, also a neurosurgeon.[5] Dr Rogers reported on 12 December 2022. He recommended that the…

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.

Continue reading Federation Council v Carpenter

Details

AGLC: Federation Council v Carpenter [2025] NSWPICPD 16
Case: [2025] NSWPICPD 16
Decision Date: 3 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federation Council sought a review of a decision made by the Workers Compensation Regulator to compensate Mr Carpenter for injuries sustained in a workplace incident. The dispute centred on the interpretation of Section 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, which relates to the assessment of compensation for workers who have been injured in the course of their employment. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Mr Carpenter's injuries were in fact work-related and, if so, whether the compensation awarded was appropriate under the relevant statutory provisions. The court had to consider relevant case law, including O’Callaghan v Energy World Corporation Ltd, Abu-Ali v Martin-Brower Australia Pty Ltd, Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Grigor, and Flying Solo Properties Pty Ltd v Collet. These cases provided guidance on the interpretation of similar statutory provisions and the application of the relevant legal principles.

After reviewing the evidence and the applicable law, the court found that Mr Carpenter's injuries were indeed work-related. However, the court determined that the compensation awarded was excessive. The court applied the principles established in the cited cases and concluded that the amount of compensation awarded should be reduced to reflect the correct interpretation of Section 352(3) of the Act. The court ordered that the compensation be adjusted accordingly.

The final orders of the court included a reduction of the compensation amount to reflect the correct interpretation of Section 352(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The decision was based on the court's determination that the original compensation amount was excessive, and the adjustment was necessary to ensure compliance with the relevant statutory provisions.

Orders