Legal Research
Cases
Goodwin v Bunnings Group Ltd

Goodwin v Bunnings Group Ltd

Case [2024] NSWPIC 603 28 October 2024

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Goodwin v Bunnings Group Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 603
APPLICANT:	Roslyn Patricia Goodwin
RESPONDENT:	Bunnings Group Limited
MEMBER:	Kathryn Camp
DATE OF DECISION:	28 October 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; psychological injury; section 11A(1); whether the applicant’s accepted psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action with respect to transfer; claim for weekly compensation and medical expenses payable; assessment of the reliability of evidence; consideration and application of Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Ltd v Doyle; Held – the applicant’s injury is not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the employer with respect to transfer; the applicant has an entitlement to weekly payments of compensation and reasonably necessary medical treatment and expenses pursuant to sections 37 and 60.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent has not established a defence under s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation for the period 22 February 2024 to date and ongoing, based on a pre-injury average weekly earnings figure of $1,161.60. The parties are to lodge consent orders within seven days of the date of this decision with respect to the quantification of the applicant’s entitlement to weekly payments, in accordance with this decision. 3. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses on production of accounts, receipts and/or Medicare Notice of Charge, pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 4. Liberty to apply in respect of the quantum of weekly payments in order [2].

STATEMENT OF REASONS

INTRODUCTION

This matter concerns a claim for weekly payments of compensation and medical expenses in respect of an accepted psychological injury. In particular, it concerns whether the psychological injury was wholly or predominately caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by the respondent with respect to transfer under s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act)
For the reasons discussed below, the worker’s claim for compensation is successful.

BACKGROUND

From 2006, the applicant worker, Roslyn Patricia Goodwin, commenced employment with the respondent, Bunnings Group Limited. She commenced work as a register operator and door greeter, then a Community Involvement and Activities Organiser within 18 months, then a Receptionist and Administration Assistant from 2014.
On 28 August 2023, the applicant made a claim for permanent impairment compensation in respect of a psychological injury. The applicant was paid compensation in respect of this injury.
On 22 February 2024, the respondent insurer issued a notice pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) declining the applicant’s claim for compensation on the basis of a defence under s 11A of the 1987 Act.
On 19 June 2024, the respondent insurer issued a notice pursuant to ss 287A and 78 of the 1998 Act confirming the declinature of the applicant’s claim.
On 9 July 2024,…

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 Goodwin v Bunnings Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Goodwin v Bunnings Group Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 603
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 603
Decision Date: 28 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goodwin v Bunnings Group Ltd, the applicant, Goodwin, sought compensation for a psychological injury sustained during her employment. The dispute centred on whether the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by actions taken by the employer, Bunnings Group Ltd, in relation to her transfer. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's psychological injury was caused by reasonable actions taken by the employer concerning her transfer, as stipulated under section 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court also had to assess the reliability of the evidence presented regarding the causation of the injury and the entitlement to weekly compensation and medical expenses.

The court found that the applicant's psychological injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken by the employer concerning the transfer. The reasoning involved a thorough assessment of the evidence and application of the principles from Manly Pacific International Hotel Pty Ltd v Doyle. The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to weekly compensation and reasonably necessary medical treatment and expenses, as per sections 37 and 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court ordered that Bunnings Group Ltd pay the applicant weekly compensation and cover the reasonably necessary medical treatment and expenses.

Orders