WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | ||||
| CITATION: | Gerry, Vicki and Frank Koutsioukis t/as Taste of Europe Bakery or t/as Hurstville Hot Breads v Bouza & Ors [2007] NSWWCCPD 185 | |||
| APPELLANT: | Gerry, Vicki and Frank Koutsioukis t/as Taste of Europe Bakery or t/as Hurstville Hot Breads | |||
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Francisco Manuel Bouza | |||
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Peter Stergiou and Maria Stergiou t/as Taste of Europe Bakery or t/as Hurstville Hot Breads | |||
| THIRD RESPONDENT: | Peter Stergiou and Gerry Koutsioukis t/as Taste of Europe Bakery or t/as Hurstville Hot Breads | |||
| FOURTH RESPONDENT: | Gerry, Vicki and Frank Koutsioukis t/as Taste of Europe Bakery or t/as Hurstville Hot Breads | |||
| FIFTH RESPONDENT: | The WorkCover Authority of New South Wales | |||
| INSURERS: | Appellant: Employers Mutual (NSW) limited (on risk from 19.7.2001) | |||
| Second Respondent: Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (unknown) | ||||
| Third Respondent: GIO General Limited (on risk prior to 4.11.1997) | ||||
| Fourth Respondent: Uninsured | ||||
| FILE NUMBER: | WCC986-06 | |||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 21 December 2006 | |||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 28 August 2007 | |||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Whether the evidence supported the Arbitrator’s finding that the last employer/insurer was liable for the award; ‘Injury’; Application of sections 9A, 15 and 16 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. | |||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Acting Deputy President Deborah Moore | |||
| HEARING: | 19 July 2007 | |||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Edwards Michael Moroney | ||
| First Respondent: PK Simpson & Co | ||||
| Second Respondent: No appearance | ||||
| Third Respondent: Rankin & Nathan | ||||
| Fourth Respondent: No appearance | ||||
| Fifth Respondent: Sparke Helmore | ||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1.Time to appeal the Arbitrator’s decision of 13 December 2006 is extended to 16 January 2007. | |||
| 2.Paragraphs 1 to 5 inclusive of the Arbitrator’s ‘Certificate of Determination’ dated 13 December 2006 are confirmed. | ||||
| 3.Paragraph 6 is revoked. | ||||
| 4.The matter is remitted to the Arbitrator at first instance for referral of all the Applicant’s claims for lump sum compensation to an ‘Approved Medical Specialist’ in accordance with these reasons. | ||||
| 5.The Appellant is to pay the costs of the appeal. | ||||
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
By a document titled “ Fourth Amended Application for Determination” filed in the former Compensation Court of New South Wales on 17 December 2003, Francisco Manuel Bouza (‘Mr Bouza’) sought compensation from his employers being either Peter Stergiou, Maria Stergiou, Gerry Koutsioukis, Frank Koutsioukis or Vicki Koutsioukis or a combination of any of those persons as a result of various injuries he claimed to have sustained in the course of his employment.
The proceedings were transferred to the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) and an ‘Application to Resolve a Dispute’ was filed in the Commission on 24 January 2006.
The various employers and their insurers are set out in the citation to this appeal.
Mr Bouza was born on 8 October 1944 and is presently 62 years of age. He migrated to Australia from Uruguay in about 1979. He apparently worked as a baker in Uruguay and continued that occupation in Australia from about 1981.
Mr Bouza commenced employment with the “Taste of Europe Bakeries” or “Hurstville Hot Breads” in about 1994.
Continue reading Gerry, Vicki and Frank Koutsioukis t/as Taste of Europe Bake...
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Gerry, Vicki and Frank Koutsioukis t/as Taste of Europe Bakery or t/as Hurstville Hot Breads v Bouza [2007] NSWWCCPD 185
- Case
- [2007] NSWWCCPD 185
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the court were the interpretation and application of the relevant statutory provisions and the assessment of the evidence presented to the Arbitrator. The court had to determine whether the evidence was sufficient to uphold the Arbitrator's finding regarding liability and whether the statutory definitions and provisions were correctly applied. The interpretation of the term 'injury' within the Workers Compensation Act was also central to the case, as it affected the applicability of the relevant sections.
In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and the Arbitrator's reasoning. It examined the statutory provisions and their interplay, ensuring that the interpretation aligned with the legislative intent. The court found that the evidence did support the Arbitrator's decision, affirming the liability of the last employer or insurer for the award. The court also confirmed that the statutory provisions were correctly applied, and the term 'injury' was interpreted in accordance with the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Consequently, the court upheld the Arbitrator's decision and extended the time for any appeal to January 16, 2007.
Orders
Orders of the court
1.Time to appeal the Arbitrator’s decision of 13 December 2006 is extended to 16 January 2007.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.