Legal Research
Cases
Howard v Bede Murray Racing Stables

Howard v Bede Murray Racing Stables

Case [2022] NSWPIC 665 2 December 2022

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Howard v Bede Murray Racing Stables [2022] NSWPIC 665
APPLICANT:	Joanne Howard
RESPONDENT:	Bede Murray
Member:	Paul Sweeney
DATE OF DECISION:	2 December 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - By a section 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 notice, the employer sought to deny injury to the worker’s neck and shoulders on 16 January 2009; a previous award of the Workers Compensation Commission (WCC) in 2015 ordered the employer to pay permanent impairment compensation in respect of these body parts as a result of the 2009 injury; a further award of the WCC in 2017, entered after an arbitration hearing, ordered the employer to pay section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 expenses as a result of an injury to the neck on 16 January 2009; Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited and Miller v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice considered and applied; Held – that the earlier awards were binding “judicial determinations” that the worker suffered injury to her neck and both shoulders on 16 January 2009; employer estopped from denying injury in these proceedings both by cause of action estoppel and the principle in Anshun v Port of Melbourne Authority.
determinations made:	1. Respondent to lodge with the Commission under cover of an Application to Admit Late Documents the documents handed up and received into evidence at the arbitration hearing on 22 November 2022. 2. The respondent is estopped from asserting that the applicant did not suffer injury to her cervical spine and both shoulders as a result of injury on 16 January 2009 by the awards in Matter No 5148/14 and2261/17 in the Workers Compensation Commission. 3. In the event that there are outstanding issues liberty to the parties to apply at the appropriate time.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

On 25 May 2009, Joanne Howard (the applicant) reported an injury to her neck and both shoulders, which she alleged arose out of and in the course of her employment with Bede Murray Racing Stables (the respondent), on 16 January 2009. The respondent, through its worker’s compensation insurer, Racing NSW Insurance Fund, accepted liability for the injury and paid her compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
On four occasions since the reporting of the injury, disputes have arisen between the applicant and the respondent as to aspects of her entitlement to compensation. These disputes were resolved or determined by the Workers Compensation Commission (WCC).
In matter number 5148/14 in the WCC (the 2014 Application), the applicant claimed compensation for permanent impairment pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act in respect of her neck and shoulders as a result of the injury. As the respondent ultimately accepted liability for these injuries, the medical dispute as to the degree of her whole person impairment (WPI) was referred to an Approved Medical Specialist (AMS). On 10 December 2014, the AMS issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) certifying that…

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 Howard v Bede Murray Racing Stables

Details

AGLC: Howard v Bede Murray Racing Stables [2022] NSWPIC 665
Case: [2022] NSWPIC 665
Decision Date: 2 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Howard v Bede Murray Racing Stables, the employer, Bede Murray Racing Stables, sought to dispute a section 78 notice issued by the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, which related to an injury the worker, Howard, claimed to have sustained to their neck and shoulders on 16 January 2009. The employer's challenge came after two previous awards by the Workers Compensation Commission (WCC) had already determined that Howard was entitled to compensation for the injuries sustained on the specified date. The initial award in 2015 ordered the employer to pay permanent impairment compensation for these injuries. A subsequent award in 2017 required the employer to pay section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 expenses, also due to the injury sustained on 16 January 2009.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the binding effect of the earlier WCC awards on the employer's ability to contest the validity of the injuries in the current proceedings. The central question was whether the employer could be estopped from denying the injuries due to the earlier determinations. The court had to consider the principles of cause of action estoppel and the Anshun principle, which pertains to the finality of judicial determinations. Relevant cases, such as Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Limited and Miller v Secretary, Department of Communities and Justice, provided guidance on these matters.

The court concluded that the earlier awards by the WCC were binding judicial determinations establishing that Howard suffered the claimed injuries on 16 January 2009. Applying the principles of cause of action estoppel and the Anshun principle, the court found the employer estopped from denying these injuries in the current proceedings. Consequently, the employer was unable to challenge the validity of the injuries, and the court upheld the previous determinations regarding the compensability of Howard's injuries.

The final orders of the court reinforced the binding nature of the earlier awards, maintaining that the employer was required to adhere to the compensation obligations previously determined by the WCC. The employer was not permitted to contest the compensability of Howard's neck and shoulder injuries arising from the incident on 16 January 2009.

Orders