Hawkesbury Race Club Limited v Leggett

Hawkesbury Race Club Limited sought to overturn a Certificate of Determination issued by the NSW Dust Diseases Tribunal, which found that the club was not liable for the dust-related disease of a former employee, Mr Leggett. The dispute centred on whether the club should be held liable for Mr Leggett's psychological injury, despite the tribunal finding that the "real events" necessary to establish a causal link between the club's actions and Mr Leggett's disease did not occur. The matter was heard in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales.

The primary issue was whether the tribunal had erred in failing to admit new evidence of Mr Leggett's psychological injury. The club argued that the new evidence would demonstrate a causal link between the club's actions and Mr Leggett's injury, and that the failure to admit this evidence would cause a substantial injustice. The club also argued that the tribunal should have considered whether its decision represented a reasonable action under s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The club's arguments were rejected by the court, which found that the tribunal had correctly determined that the "real events" necessary to establish a causal link between the club's actions and Mr Leggett's injury did not occur. The court also found that the tribunal had appropriately considered the issue of "reasonable action" under s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court held that the tribunal had not erred in refusing to admit the new evidence of Mr Leggett's psychological injury. The court found that the new evidence was not relevant to the issue of causation, as the tribunal had already determined that the "real events" necessary to establish a causal link between the club's actions and Mr Leggett's injury did not occur. The court also found that the tribunal had appropriately considered the issue of "reasonable action" under s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and that there was no basis for the club's argument that the tribunal's decision represented an unreasonable action. Accordingly, the application to admit new evidence was refused, and the Certificate of Determination dated 7 December 2017 was confirmed.