Hume v CSR Ltd

Hume brought an appeal against a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission, which was in turn an appeal against a decision of the Arbitrator. Hume was the appellant and CSR Ltd was the respondent. Hume sought workers’ compensation for an injury suffered in the course of his employment with CSR Ltd. CSR Ltd sought to overturn the Arbitrator’s decision, which had found that Hume was entitled to weekly compensation. The Full Commission upheld the Arbitrator’s decision, but Hume appealed on the basis that the Commission had failed to determine all the issues in dispute, had failed to consider submissions made on entitlement to weekly compensation, had failed to consider the legislation, and had failed to consider if Hume had a current work capacity. CSR Ltd cross-appealed on the basis that the Commission had erred in its interpretation of the legislation in relation to the meaning of suitable employment and had failed to consider the relevance of Hume’s failure to disclose a prior back injury when applying for post-injury employment. CSR Ltd argued that the post-injury employment was “artificial” and therefore not suitable employment because of Hume’s non-disclosure of his prior back injury. CSR Ltd further argued that the relevance of the unavailability of suitable employment on the open labour market was not considered.
The Court found that the Full Commission had failed to determine all the issues in dispute and had failed to consider the submissions made on entitlement to weekly compensation. The Court found that the Full Commission had failed to consider the legislation, in particular sections 32A, 36 and 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, as amended by the Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2012. The Court found that the Full Commission had failed to consider if Hume had a current work capacity. The Court found that the Full Commission had erred in its interpretation of the legislation in relation to the meaning of suitable employment and had failed to consider the relevance of Hume’s failure to disclose a prior back injury when applying for post-injury employment.
The Court found that the Full Commission had failed to consider the relevance of the unavailability of suitable employment on the open labour market. The Court found that the Full Commission had failed to consider the provisions of Part 16 r 16.2(12) of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2011, which provided for a cross-appeal. The Court found that the Full Commission had failed to consider the relevance of Hume’s non-disclosure of his prior back injury when applying for post-injury employment and that the post-injury employment was “artificial” and therefore not suitable employment. The Court found that the Full Commission had failed to consider the meaning of suitable employment and the relevance of the unavailability of suitable employment on the open labour market.
The Court ordered that the time to appeal in the appeal filed by CSR Ltd be extended until 11 November 2014. The Court revoked paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Certificate of Determination of 9 October 2014 and remitted the matter to a different Arbitrator for re-determination in accordance with the reasons in this decision. The Court ordered that each party was to pay his or its own costs of the appeals. The Court ordered that the costs of the second arbitration, and of the first arbitration, were to follow the outcome of the second arbitration.