Hall v Aware Super Services Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 651

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Hall v Aware Super Services Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 651
APPLICANT:	Elise Amy Hall
RESPONDENT:	Aware Super Services Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	26 November 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); claim for weekly compensation and medical expenses in respect of a psychological injury; whether injury wholly or predominantly due to reasonable action with respect to employment benefits; ACR v Grace Worldwide Pty Ltd and Rock Logistics Pty Ltd v Chelin considered; application of section 73 of the 1998 Act; Held – the respondent established a defence pursuant to section 11A(1) of the 1987 Act; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The Internal Investigation Report, dated 5 May 2023, by Azuhr is not admissible in the proceedings pursuant to s 73(3)(b) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 2. Award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Elise Amy Hall (the applicant) was employed as a financial planner by Aware Super Services Pty Ltd (the respondent). It is agreed between the parties that the applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of or arising out of her employment with the respondent.
The applicant’s claim for compensation was, however, disputed in notices issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 3 March 2023, 4 July 2023 and, following internal review, on 24 June 2024. The respondent’s insurer relied, amongst other things, on a defence pursuant to s 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) to dispute liability.
The present proceedings were commenced by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission on 29 July 2024. The applicant seeks weekly compensation and compensation pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act for incurred medical and related treatment expenses.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The parties appeared for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing via Microsoft Teams on 17 October 2024. The applicant was represented by Mr Dewashish Adhikary, of counsel, instructed by Ms Jessica Campbell. The respondent was represented by Mr Andrew Combe of counsel, instructed by Mr Jesse Webb. A representative from the insurer was also present.
During the conciliation conference, the applicant raised an objection to the admission of an investigation report attached to the Reply by reference to s 73 of the 1998 Act and cl 41 of the Workers Compensation Regulation 2016 (the Regulation). As the respondent pressed for the document’s admission, the parties were invited to make formal submissions on the matter during the arbitration hearing.
The respondent informed the Commission that it no longer relied upon action with respect to “performance appraisal” for the purposes of its s 11A(1) defence.
I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in…

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 Hall v Aware Super Services Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hall v Aware Super Services Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 651
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 651
Decision Date: 26 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, the case of Hall v Aware Super Services Pty Ltd dealt with a claim for weekly compensation and medical expenses arising from a psychological injury sustained by the plaintiff, Mr Hall. The dispute centred on whether the injury was wholly or predominantly due to reasonable action taken by the employer with respect to employment benefits. The defendant, Aware Super Services Pty Ltd, contended that the injury was attributable to such reasonable actions and thus sought to establish a defence under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act).

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine if the psychological injury suffered by Mr Hall was wholly or predominantly due to reasonable actions taken by Aware Super Services Pty Ltd in the context of employment benefits, which would trigger the defence under section 11A(1) of the 1987 Act. The court had to consider the applicability of this section in light of relevant case law, including ACR v Grace Worldwide Pty Ltd and Rock Logistics Pty Ltd v Chelin, to ascertain whether the actions of the employer were reasonable and if they predominantly caused the injury.

The court found that the employer had established a defence pursuant to section 11A(1) of the 1987 Act. It concluded that the actions taken by the employer were reasonable and that these actions were a predominant cause of Mr Hall's psychological injury. The court’s decision was influenced by the analysis of the employer’s actions in the context of the statutory provisions and the relevant case law. Consequently, the court dismissed Mr Hall’s claim and awarded costs in favour of the respondent.

Orders