ISS Property Services Pty Ltd v Abdou

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: ISS Property Services Pty Ltd v Abdou [2017] NSWWCCPD 28
APPELLANT: ISS Property Services Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Ahmad Abdou
INSURER: ISS Property Services Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER: A1-761/17
ARBITRATOR: Ms C McDonald
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 10 May 2017
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 4 July 2017
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Absence of transcript of extempore reasons for decision; statutory duty to give reasons; s 294 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; r 15.6 of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2011; constructive failure to give reasons
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: President Judge Keating
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Bartier Perry
Respondent: Masselos & Co Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1. Leave to appeal is granted pursuant to s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

2.       The Senior Arbitrator’s determination of 10 May 2017 is revoked.

3.       The matter is remitted to another Arbitrator for determination afresh.

INTRODUCTION

  1. This matter concerns whether an appeal under s 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) can proceed in the absence of a transcript of the Senior Arbitrator’s extempore reasons for decision.

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Abdou, the respondent to the appeal, was employed by the appellant, ISS Property Services Pty Ltd (ISS), as a cleaner.

  2. On 29 November 2013, Mr Abdou was emptying garbage bins into a trolley. By reason of the fact that an hydraulic lift attached to the trolley was out of service, Mr Abdou was required to physically lift the load into the trolley. He alleges that, in the course of doing so, he sustained an injury to his back. Mr Abdou also claims that the general nature and conditions of his employment involving repetitive and excessive lifting emptying garbage bags, vacuuming, sweeping, and using a blower aggravated a disease process in his lower back.

  3. On 4 February 2014, Mr Abdou made a claim of injury to his back on 29 November 2013. He described the injury to have occurred while “lifting heavy box” and “cleaning rubbish”.

  4. On 27 February 2014, ISS issued a notice under s 74 of the 1998 Act. It declined liability on the basis that Mr Abdou suffered from a pre-existing condition and had not suffered an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment.

  5. On 16 February 2017, Mr Abdou lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Commission (the Application). He sought weekly compensation from 27 February 2014 to 27 May 2014. He also sought hospital and medical expenses of, and incidental to, a laminectomy and spinal fusion operation performed by Dr Darwish on 18 September 2015. In addition, he claimed lump sum compensation in the sum of $40,425 in respect of a 23 per cent whole person impairment, pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

  6. On 9 March 2017, ISS filed a reply to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read ISS Property Services Pty Ltd v Abdou 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
[2017] NSWWCCPD 28
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, ISS Property Services Pty Ltd was the appellant, contesting a decision made by the respondent, Abdou, who was represented by the Workers Compensation Commission. The dispute centred on the statutory duty to provide reasons for decisions made under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The case required the court to determine whether the absence of a transcript of extempore reasons for the Senior Arbitrator's decision constituted a failure to comply with the statutory requirement to provide reasons, and whether this failure warranted the revocation of the decision and the remitting of the matter to another Arbitrator for a fresh determination.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the absence of a transcript of the extempore reasons delivered by the Senior Arbitrator constituted a constructive failure to provide reasons, in breach of section 294 of the Act and rule 15.6 of the Workers Compensation Commission Rules 2011. The court had to assess the implications of this failure on the validity of the decision and whether it warranted the revocation of the decision and the remitting of the matter to another Arbitrator for determination afresh.

The court found that the absence of a transcript of the extempore reasons amounted to a constructive failure to provide reasons as required by the statutory provisions. This failure rendered the decision invalid, as it deprived the parties of the opportunity to understand and challenge the basis of the decision. The court determined that the decision was flawed due to the absence of the necessary reasons and thus revoked the Senior Arbitrator’s determination. Consequently, the matter was remitted to another Arbitrator for a fresh determination, ensuring that the statutory requirement for reasons was properly adhered to.

The court granted leave to appeal and revoked the Senior Arbitrator's determination of 10 May 2017. It also remitted the matter to another Arbitrator for a determination afresh, ensuring compliance with the statutory duty to provide reasons.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is granted pursuant to s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

2. The Senior Arbitrator’s determination of 10 May 2017 is revoked.

3. The matter is remitted to another Arbitrator for determination afresh.

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.