Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rachmaninoff - [2011] NSWWCCPD 35

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
*STATUS: This decision has been the subject of a reconsideration in Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rachmaninoff (No 2)* [2011] NSWWCCPD 61**
CITATION:		Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rachmaninoff [2011] NSWWCCPD 35
APPELLANT:		Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:		Darren Rachmaninoff
INSURER:		Self insurer
FILE NUMBER:		A1-4482/10
ARBITRATOR:	Ms Margaret Dalley
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:		16 July 2010
DATE OF APPEAL HEARING:		20 June 2011
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:		6 July 2011
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Duty to give reasons for decision; s 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; requirements as to giving notice of dispute; s 357 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; Commission’s discretion to give directions requiring production of documents; failure to exercise discretion; allegation of ‘nature and conditions’ injury; consequences of failure to adequately particularise injury alleged; parties’ obligation to adhere to Registrar’s Guidelines
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		Deputy President Kevin O'Grady
HEARING:		Oral
REPRESENTATION:		Appellant:	Mr Macken of Leigh Virtue & Associates
Respondent:	Mr Del Monte, instructed by Maurice Blackburn Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:		The Arbitrator’s determination as made in Certificate of Determination dated 16 July 2010 is confirmed. The Registrar’s orders made in Certificate of Determination dated 9 February 2011 are confirmed. The appellant is to pay Mr Rachmaninoff’s costs of this appeal.

BACKGROUND

Mr Darren Rachmaninoff commenced employment as a farmhand with Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd (the appellant) in 2002. I note at the outset that there is no statement by Mr Rachmaninoff in evidence before the Commission. His duties, it seems, involved catching chickens. That work involved a lot of bending, twisting, working on uneven surfaces and lifting weights between seven and 10 kgs. It is alleged by Mr Rachmaninoff that the “nature and conditions” of this work caused injury to his back. The period of work relevant to causation of the injury is said to be between 2002 and December 2009.
As a result of the alleged injury, Mr Rachmaninoff was absent from work and received medical treatment in respect of his condition. It seems that upon return to work he was provided with suitable duties by the appellant.
On 22 February 2010 a claim for lump sum compensation was made against the appellant on behalf of Mr Rachmaninoff by his solicitors pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) being the sum of $6,875 in respect of five per cent whole person impairment. That correspondence did not nominate a particular date of injury but, rather, noted that Mr Rachmaninoff’s “job involved a lot of bending, twisting and lifting”. Reliance was placed upon the opinion of Dr Yiu-Key Ho, orthopaedic surgeon, and a copy of that practitioner’s report dated 8 December 2009 was enclosed with the correspondence.
That claim was declined by the appellant, a self insurer, and a notice concerning that denial of liability was forwarded to Mr Rachmaninoff’s solicitors in accordance…

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 Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd v Rachmaninoff 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: [2011] NSWWCCPD 35
Decision Date: 6 July 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd sought to appeal a decision made by an arbitrator in relation to a workers' compensation claim brought by Mr Rachmaninoff. The dispute was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the arbitrator had the authority to require Inghams Enterprises to provide documents related to Mr Rachmaninoff's injury. Inghams Enterprises argued that the arbitrator had overstepped their authority by demanding the production of documents. Additionally, the court had to consider whether Mr Rachmaninoff had adequately particularised the nature and conditions of his injury, which could affect the outcome of his claim.

The court found that the arbitrator had the discretion to require the production of documents and had not abused this discretion. The court also noted that Mr Rachmaninoff had sufficiently particularised the nature and conditions of his injury, which was an essential requirement for his claim. Furthermore, the court emphasised the importance of both parties adhering to the Registrar's Guidelines to ensure a fair and efficient resolution of the dispute. The court concluded that the arbitrator's decision was correct and that Inghams Enterprises' appeal was without merit.

The court confirmed the arbitrator's determination as stated in the Certificate of Determination dated 16 July 2010 and also confirmed the Registrar's orders made in the Certificate of Determination dated 9 February 2011. The court ordered Inghams Enterprises to pay Mr Rachmaninoff's costs associated with the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Arbitrator’s determination as made in Certificate of Determination dated 16 July 2010 is confirmed. The Registrar’s orders made in Certificate of Determination dated 9 February 2011 are confirmed.

The appellant is to pay Mr Rachmaninoff’s costs of this appeal.

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.