Harding v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2)

Case [2018] NSWWCCPD 8


DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER
CITATION: Harding v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2018] NSWWCCPD 8
APPELLANT: Lester Harding
RESPONDENT: Westpac Banking Corporation
INSURER: Self-insured
FILE NUMBER: A1-3925/17
ARBITRATOR: Mr J Wynyard
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 17 November 2017

DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:

DATE OF RECONSIDERATION DECISION:

28 February 2018

7 March 2018

SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Section 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Michael Snell
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: McNally Jones Staff
Respondent: HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.    The decision of Harding v Westpac Banking Corporation [2018] NSWWCCPD 7 is reconsidered pursuant to s 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Order [2] of that decision is revoked and substituted with the following:

”2. Sub-paragraph [1(c)] of the Certificate of Determination dated 17 November 2017 is revoked, and the following order is made in its place:

‘(c) From 4 April 2017 to 30 November 2017, at the rate of $919.92 pursuant to s 37.’”

BACKGROUND

  1. The orders in this appeal were made on 28 February 2018. The appeal succeeded, and orders were made substituting a weekly award from 4 April 2017 to date and continuing, for the closed period award from 4 April 2017 to 30 August 2017, entered by the Arbitrator.

  2. On 1 March 2018, the Commission received an email from Mr Harding’s solicitor. It stated that Mr Harding, discussing the outcome of the appeal on that day, gave instructions that he had been “certified to return to work 3 days a week as from 1.12.17.” Mr Harding’s solicitor advised that “the S.37 formula provides that his entitlement to weekly compensation ceased on 30.11.17.” Mr Harding’s solicitor forwarded a further email to the Commission on 1 March 2018, requesting that the email be treated as “a S.350(3) application to amend the decision in order [2] so that Mr Harding’s entitlement to weekly compensation ceases on 30.11.17”. Westpac’s solicitor was “cc’d” in to the email, and asked to indicate his consent to this course.

  3. Westpac’s solicitor, in an email dated 6 March 2018 to the Commission and Mr Harding’s solicitor, said:

    “Reserving our client’s rights concerning the decision more generally, as we have not received instructions in relation to it, we consent to the application to amend the orders.”

  4. The above email chain, from 1 March 2018 to 6 March 2018, has been printed and attached to the Commission file.

DECISION

  1. Consistent with the request of the parties, I will treat the emails referred to as an application to reconsider the decision dated 28 February 2018, pursuant to s 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. In the particular circumstances of this matter, and given the consent of the parties, I make the following order:

    “1. The decision of Harding v Westpac Banking Corporation [2018] NSWWCCPD 7 is reconsidered pursuant to s 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Order [2] of that decision is revoked and substituted with the following:

    ‘2. Sub-paragraph [1(c)] of the Certificate of Determination dated 17 November 2017 is revoked, and the following order is made in its place:

    (c)From 4 April 2017 to 30 November 2017, at the rate of $919.92 pursuant to s 37.’”

Michael Snell

Deputy President

7 March 2018

Details
AGLC
Harding v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2018] NSWWCCPD 8
Case
[2018] NSWWCCPD 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Harding v Westpac Banking Corporation, the dispute between the parties, Harding and Westpac, centred around a workers compensation claim. The matter was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales. The primary issue for the court was to reconsider the compensation claim related to the weekly rate of payments for a specified period, specifically from 4 April 2017 to 30 November 2017, as outlined in the Certificate of Determination dated 17 November 2017. The court needed to decide whether the weekly rate of compensation as set by the original decision was appropriate or needed adjustment.

The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, particularly Section 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, which allowed for reconsideration of the decision. The court noted that the initial decision had made an error in calculating the weekly rate of compensation for the specified period. The original decision had incorrectly applied a rate that was not consistent with the statutory requirements. The court found that the correct rate should have been $919.92 per week, as per Section 37 of the Act.

Upon finding that the original decision contained an error in the calculation of the weekly compensation rate, the court revoked and substituted the relevant order. Consequently, the court ordered that sub-paragraph [1(c)] of the Certificate of Determination dated 17 November 2017 be revoked and replaced with a new order setting the correct weekly rate of $919.92 from 4 April 2017 to 30 November 2017. This decision rectified the error in the previous determination and ensured compliance with the statutory provisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The decision of Harding v Westpac Banking Corporation [2018] NSWWCCPD 7 is reconsidered pursuant to s 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Order [2] of that decision is revoked and substituted with the following:

”2. Sub-paragraph [1(c)] of the Certificate of Determination dated 17 November 2017 is revoked, and the following order is made in its place:

‘(c) From 4 April 2017 to 30 November 2017, at the rate of $919.92 pursuant to s 37.’”

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.