Hurley v Westpac Banking Corporation - [2024] NSWPIC 326

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Hurley v Westpac Banking Corporation [2024] NSWPIC 326
APPLICANT:	David Wayne Hurley
RESPONDENT:	Westpac Banking Corporation
MEMBER:	Mitchell Strachan
DATE OF DECISION:	21 June 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation; general claim for medical expenses; psychological injury accepted; whether injury ongoing; whether applicant has no current work capacity; Held – applicant has no current work capacity; award for the applicant for weekly compensation and medical expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent with a deemed date of injury of 30 November 2021. 2. The applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings were $3,237.05 per week. 3. The applicant has had no current work capacity from 30 November 2021 to date. 4. The applicant’s entitlement to weekly compensation under ss 36 and 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) exceeds the adjusted maximum statutory rate pursuant to s 34 of the 1987 Act. 5. The respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation as follows: a. 23 April 2022 to 23 July 2022 at the rate of $2,318.10 per week pursuant to s 36 of the 1987 Act; b. 24 July 2022 to 30 September 2022 at the rate of $2,318.10 per week pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act; c. 1 October 2022 to 31 March 2023 at the rate of $2,341.80 per week pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act; d. 1 April 2023 to 30 September 2023 at the rate of $2,395.30 per week pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act; e. 1 October 2023 to 31 March 2024 at the rate of $2,423.60 per week pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act, and f. 1 April 2024 to date and continuing at the rate of $2,497.70 per week pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act. 6. The respondent to have credit in accordance s 50 of the 1987 Act for any sick leave paid during the periods in order 5 above. 7. The parties have liberty to apply with respect to the indexed rates of weekly compensation in order 5 above within 14 days. 8. The respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and related treatment expenses in accordance with s 60 of the 1987 Act.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant joined St George Bank in 2005, prior to St George Bank merging and becoming a subsidiary of the respondent. The applicant was employed in a senior executive role with the respondent.
Following the merger between St George Bank and the respondent, the applicant experienced perceived interpersonal difficulties with colleagues leading him to develop a psychological injury. He made a claim for workers compensation benefits on the respondent which was ultimately declined.
The applicant commenced proceedings in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 15 February 2023 seeking weekly compensation, medical expenses and lump sum compensation.
The matter initially came before Member…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hurley v Westpac Banking Corporation and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWPIC 326
Decision Date: 21 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hurley v Westpac Banking Corporation involved the applicant, Hurley, seeking a determination regarding his entitlement to weekly compensation and medical expenses under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The dispute arose from Hurley’s claim for compensation following a work-related psychological injury. Westpac Banking Corporation contested the claim, questioning whether Hurley’s injury was ongoing and whether he had any current work capacity. The case was heard in the relevant court of workers compensation.

The court was tasked with determining whether Hurley’s psychological injury was ongoing and if he had any current work capacity. This involved assessing the medical evidence provided and determining the nature and extent of Hurley’s injury. The court also needed to consider whether the injury was related to his employment and if it prevented him from performing any work at the time of the hearing.

The court found that Hurley’s psychological injury was indeed ongoing and that he had no current work capacity. The court accepted the medical evidence presented, which supported the conclusion that Hurley’s injury was work-related and that it prevented him from engaging in any employment. Based on this finding, the court ruled in favour of Hurley, awarding him weekly compensation and medical expenses. The court determined that Hurley was entitled to these payments under the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders