| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||
| CITATION: | Gregory J Britt and Leanne Britt v Coady [2014] NSWWCCPD 5 | ||
| APPELLANT: | Gregory J Britt and Leanne Britt | ||
| RESPONDENT: | Glen Edward Coady | ||
| INSURER: | QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd | ||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-13099/12 | ||
| ARBITRATOR: | Mr J Phillips SC | ||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 17 October 2013 | ||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 30 January 2014 | ||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Whether injury received in an assault during an interval in actual work was received in the course of employment; factual findings; issues not argued at arbitration; application of the principles in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd [1992] HCA 21; 173 CLR 473 and Comcare v PVYW [2013] HCA 41; non-compliance with Practice Direction No 6 | ||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Deputy President Bill Roche | ||
| HEARING: | On the papers | ||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Bartier Perry | |
| Respondent: | Commins Hendriks | ||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1. The Arbitrator’s determination of 17 October 2013 is confirmed and the matter is remitted to the Arbitrator for determination of all outstanding matters. 2. The appellant employer is to pay the respondent worker’s costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST. | ||
INTRODUCTION
This appeal concerns a claim for compensation for injuries received by a worker when his employer assaulted him late in the evening after both men had been drinking. The main issues on appeal are whether the injury was received while on an interval in an overall period of work and whether the employer had induced or encouraged the worker to spend the interval at a particular place or in a particular way (Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd [1992] HCA 21; 173 CLR 473 (Hatzimanolis). In the alternative, an issue arises as to whether the injury arose out of the worker’s employment.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In partnership with his wife, Leanne Britt, Gregory Britt has conducted a building and concreting business for about 17 years from his home at Gundagai. The business has operated in the Gundagai, Young, Cootamundra and Temora districts in south-western New South Wales. In December 2010, and for some months prior to that time, Mr Britt was engaged in concreting work at the Cootamundra Abattoir near Cootamundra. At that time, the respondent worker, Glen Coady, worked for Mr Britt as a labourer, having started with him in February 2010. In addition to his labouring duties, Mr Coady also drove Mr Britt to and from work and, as required, to other places, as Mr Britt had lost his driver’s licence because of a drink driving offence.
On Saturday, 11 December 2010, Mr Coady drove his car to Mr Britt’s home at Gundagai. Mr Coady left his car there and drove Mr Britt to Cootamundra Abattoir, in Mr Britt’s car, arriving at about 6.30 am. Other workers employed by Mr Britt on this job were his brother, Andrew, and his cousin Scott Pollack, who drove to the abattoir in a separate vehicle.
This much is uncontroversial. However, in view of how the appeal…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Gregory J Britt and Leanne Britt v Coady and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWWCCPD 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues in the case were whether the injury was received in the course of employment, and whether the arbitrator had considered all relevant evidence. The Commission noted that the employer had not raised certain issues at the arbitration hearing, and had failed to comply with Practice Direction No 6. The Commission also considered the principles in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd and Comcare v PVYW, which set out the test for determining whether an injury is received in the course of employment.
The Commission found that the arbitrator had made factual findings that were not challenged by the employer, and that the employer had failed to raise certain issues at the arbitration hearing. The Commission noted that the employer had not complied with Practice Direction No 6, which requires parties to raise all relevant issues at the arbitration hearing. The Commission also considered the principles in Hatzimanolis and Comcare, and found that the arbitrator had applied them correctly. The Commission concluded that the arbitrator's decision was legally sound, and confirmed the arbitrator's determination.
The final orders of the Commission were that the arbitrator's determination of 17 October 2013 was confirmed and the matter was remitted to the Arbitrator for determination of all outstanding matters. The employer was also ordered to pay the worker's costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The Arbitrator’s determination of 17 October 2013 is confirmed and the matter is remitted to the Arbitrator for determination of all outstanding matters.
2. The appellant employer is to pay the respondent worker’s costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST.
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.