Haggett v Woolworths Group Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 87

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Haggett v Woolworths Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 87
APPLICANT:	Shane Haggett
RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	17 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly payments of compensation and treatment expenses in respect of psychological injury; whether injury predominantly caused by reasonable action with respect to discipline pursuant to section 11A(1); causation multifactorial; Hamad v Q Catering Ltd applied; Held – respondent’s medicolegal opinion that disciplinary action was the predominant cause of injury accepted; reasonableness of relevant action not challenged; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Shane Haggett (the applicant) sustained a psychological injury in the course of his employment with Woolworths Group Limited (the respondent).
Liability to pay compensation for the injury was disputed by the respondent in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on the ground that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the respondent with respect to discipline pursuant to s 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, (the 1987 Act).
The applicant commenced the present proceedings by an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) lodged with the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on
12 November 2024.
The applicant seeks weekly compensation from 19 July 2024 pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act and incurred medical and related treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The parties appeared before the Commission for preliminary conference in Sydney on 18 February 2025. The applicant was represented by Mr Beran of counsel. The respondent was represented by Mr Robison of counsel.
During the conciliation, the parties agreed that the pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) rate was $1,965.06. It was also agreed that a general order for the payment of medical and related treatment expenses should be made in the event the liability dispute was determined in the applicant’s favour. The applicant indicated that he would not be making any submissions that the relevant disciplinary action was not “reasonable”. There remained a dispute as to the whole or predominant cause of the injury.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all of them. I am satisfied that the parties have had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement and that they have been unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the injury was wholly or…

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 Haggett v Woolworths Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Haggett v Woolworths Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 87
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 87
Decision Date: 17 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Haggett v Woolworths Group Ltd involved the claimant, Haggett, who sought weekly payments of compensation and treatment expenses related to a psychological injury sustained in the workplace. The defendant, Woolworths Group Ltd, contested the claim, asserting that the psychological injury was predominantly caused by reasonable disciplinary actions taken pursuant to section 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This case was heard in the relevant Australian court.

The court was tasked with determining whether the psychological injury claimed by Haggett was predominantly caused by the disciplinary action taken by Woolworths Group Ltd. The key legal issue was whether the reasonable disciplinary action taken constituted the predominant cause of the psychological injury under section 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. This required the court to consider the multifactorial causation of the injury, a matter which had been previously addressed in the case of Hamad v Q Catering Ltd.

The court found that the psychological injury sustained by Haggett was predominantly caused by the disciplinary action taken by Woolworths Group Ltd, as supported by the respondent's medicolegal opinion. The court noted that the reasonableness of the disciplinary action was not challenged by Haggett. Therefore, the court applied the principles established in Hamad v Q Catering Ltd and held that the disciplinary action was the predominant cause of the psychological injury. Consequently, the court dismissed Haggett's claim for weekly payments of compensation and treatment expenses, ruling in favour of Woolworths Group Ltd.

Orders