Grasa v Roads & Maritime Services

In the matter of Grasa v Roads & Maritime Services, the appellant worker, Mr Grasa, appealed a decision made by an arbitrator who had determined that he was not entitled to workers’ compensation for a psychological injury he claimed to have sustained while employed by the respondent employer, Roads & Maritime Services. The dispute was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The appeal centred on whether the arbitrator had erred in his consideration of the evidence and applicable legal principles.

The legal issues before the court included whether the arbitrator had correctly applied the principles from relevant case law such as Rail Services Australia v Dimovski, Strinic v Singh, State Transit Authority (NSW) v Chemler, and Attorney General’s Department v K. Specifically, the court examined if the arbitrator had properly considered the consent orders, the relevance of Mr Grasa's consent to certain workplace conditions, and the significance of medical evidence presented. Additionally, the court assessed whether the arbitrator's findings were based on evidence presented and if the principles concerning perception of real events and the relevance of bullying and harassment were correctly applied.

The Court of Appeal found that the arbitrator had failed to properly consider the medical evidence and the principles set out in the cited cases. The court determined that the arbitrator had made findings based on information that was not in evidence and had not adequately applied the principles concerning consent orders and the perception of real events. Consequently, the arbitrator's determination was revoked, and the matter was remitted to a different arbitrator for re-determination. The respondent employer was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal, with further costs to be determined following the outcome of the second arbitration.