| CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER | |
| CITATION: | Grigor v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 257 |
| APPLICANT: | John Grigor |
| RESPONDENT: | Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd |
| MEMBER: | Kerry Haddock |
| DATE OF DECISION: | 21 July 2021 |
| CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION- Applicant claimed weekly benefits and permanent impairment compensation as a result of injury to his lumbar spine; applicant brought previous proceedings in which it was determined that he had sustained injury to his lumbar spine in the employ of the respondent; in those proceedings, he discontinued the claim for the cost of surgery to his lumbar spine and sought weekly benefits and a general order for medical expenses pursuant to section 60 of the 1987 Act; he was not awarded weekly benefits due to the operation of section 32A of the1987 Act; and a general order for medical expenses was made; respondent appealed against the decision of the arbitrator; Presidential Member determined that the thresholds in section 352(3) of the 1998 Act had not been met and there was no right of appeal; applicant brought proceedings for the cost of surgery to his lumbar spine, which were resolved by consent; respondent sought leave to request a reconsideration of the arbitrator’s decision; applicant opposed the granting of leave and the application for reconsideration; applicant directed to lodge written submissions on the application of section 289A (4) of the 1998 Act and reconsideration application and matter to be listed for telephone conference after determination of those matters; Matues v Zodune Pty Limited t/as Tempo Cleaning Services and Samuel v Sebel Furniture Limited considered; Held- leave granted to the respondent pursuant to section 289A (4) of the 1998 Act to request reconsideration of arbitrator’s decision; reconsideration application refused; matter to be listed for telephone conference for directions as to future conduct. |
| DETERMINATIONS MADE: | 1. That the respondent is granted leave pursuant to section 289A (4) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to request a reconsideration of the decision of Arbitrator Bell in Matter Number 003480/16. 2. That the application for reconsideration is refused. 3. That the matter is to be listed for telephone conference for directions as to its future conduct. |
STATEMENT OF REASONS
BACKGROUND
The applicant, John Grigor, was employed by the respondent, Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (Inghams), as a storeman. The respondent is self-insured for workers’ compensation.
Mr Grigor has been found to have sustained injury to his lower back in the course of his employment with Inghams on 18 March 2014. That injury was determined to be in the form of the aggravation, exacerbation, acceleration or deterioration of degenerative lumbar spine disease.
The determination in favour of the applicant was made in the Workers Compensation Commission (WCC) by Arbitrator Ross Bell, in Matter Number 003480/16, after a hearing between the same parties. The Certificate of Determination, dated 12 December 2016, is in evidence.
Arbitrator Bell found that the applicant was partially incapacitated for work during the periods for which he claimed weekly benefits. However, he found that Mr Grigor had nil…
Continue reading Grigor v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Grigor v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 257
- Case
- [2021] NSWPIC 257
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the respondent had the right to request reconsideration of the arbitrator's decision under section 57 of the Workers Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Act 2020 and whether granting such reconsideration would set a precedent that could circumvent the aims of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The respondent argued that the decision contained an obvious error, as it did not fully address all the issues raised in the appeal, and that reconsideration was necessary to prevent potential abuse of the Act by claimants seeking to circumvent the appeal process.
The court, after considering relevant precedents and the arguments presented, held that leave should be granted to the respondent to request reconsideration of the arbitrator’s decision, pursuant to section 289A (4) of the Workers Compensation Act 1998. However, the application for reconsideration was ultimately refused. The court determined that while the respondent had the jurisdiction to request reconsideration, the application was not in the interests of justice and would not achieve the intended purpose of the Act. The matter was then listed for a telephone conference to direct future conduct regarding the claims.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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
Section 57 of the 2020 Act provides: “57 Reconsideration of decisions of Commission(1) The Commission may reconsider any matter that has been dealt with by the Commission in the Workers Compensation Division and rescind, alter or amend any decision previously made or given by the Commission in that Division.(2) If after the making of a decision by the Commission (and without limiting subsection (1)), the President is satisfied that the decision contains an obvious error, the President may--(a) alter the decision to correct the error, or(b) direct a registrar to alter the decision to correct the error.(3) Without limiting subsection (2), if the decision is contained in a certificate, the President may--(a) issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected, or(b) direct a registrar to issue a replacement certificate with the error corrected.(4) If a decision is altered, the altered decision is taken to be the decision and notice of the alteration is to be given to the parties in the proceedings in the manner directed by the President.(5) If a replacement certificate is issued, the certificate prevails over any previous certificate.(6) Examples of obvious errors in a decision are where--(a) there is an obvious clerical or typographical error in the text of the notice or statement, or(b) there is an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, or(c) there is a defect of form, or(d) there is an inconsistency between the stated decision and the stated reasons.” The respondent submitted that all the issues that were before me were in issue before Arbitrator Bell. He determined them in accordance with the Certificate of Determination. The respondent appealed on all issues but that which related to economic loss. The only basis on which the appeal was dismissed by Snell DP was that it did not satisfy the mandatory thresholds provided for by section 352(3) of the 1998 Act. The applicant has brought further proceedings, claiming weekly benefits from the time of the surgery and a lump sum. The claim now exceeds the monetary thresholds. Should an appeal be lodged, those thresholds would be satisfied. The respondent submitted that Snell DP did not go further than the monetary thresholds dispute or decide the issues on appeal. Those issues ranged “far and wide” and included the medical evidence and the applicant’s credit. The respondent submitted that I have the jurisdiction and power to reconsider the matter, pursuant to section 57 of the 2020 Act, which took over from section 350 of the 1998 Act. The power to reconsider goes back to the Compensation Court. It submitted that “in a general sense”, it was raised at the telephone conference that it would be requesting reconsideration. It was in the interests of justice to do so. The matters on appeal were still extant; and if leave was not granted to raise this, the “floodgates would open”, as any claimant could ask for a general order for section 60 expenses; and the respondent can’t appeal. This could circumvent the aims of the Act. The right to appeal would be extinguished once the liability dispute was determined.