Legal Research
Cases
King v Lloyd Drilling Constructions

King v Lloyd Drilling Constructions

Case [2022] NSWPIC 177 26 April 2022

Type to search within this case.

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	King v Lloyd Drilling Constructions [2022] NSWPIC 177
APPLICANT:	Shane King
RESPONDENT:	Lloyd Drilling Constructions
SENIOR MEMBER:	Kerry Haddock
DATE OF DECISION:	26 April 2022
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Applicant claimed weekly benefits for closed period; and general order for medical expenses pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); dispute as to whether applicant was a worker, pursuant to section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act), or a deemed worker, pursuant to Schedule 1, Clause 2 of the 1998 Act; consideration of Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Limited; Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Insurance Co of Australia Limited; Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills; Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd; Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd; ZG Operations Australia v Jamsek; Turner v Stewardson; Higgins v North Coast Theatres & Drive-ins Pty Ltd; Pasqua v Morelli Constructions Pty Ltd; Davis v Pioneer Concrete; and Scerri v Cahill & another; Held- applicant was a worker employed by the respondent, or in the alternative a deemed worker; award for applicant of weekly benefits pursuant to sections 36 and 37 of the 1987 Act; and medical expenses pursuant to section 60 of the Act.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. That there is an award for the applicant of weekly benefits as follows: (a) from 12 March 2019 to 11 June 2019 at the rate of $2,112.80 per week, pursuant to section 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; and (b) from 12 June 2019 to 30 April 2021 at the rate of $1,779.20 per week, pursuant to section 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. That there is an award for the applicant for medical, hospital and related expenses, pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

I have set out the background to this matter in my first determination, dated 3 February 2022. The determinations should be read together.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

In respect of this determination, the issue in dispute is:
(a) whether Shane King (the applicant) was a worker employed by Lloyd Drilling Constructions (the respondent), pursuant to section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) or a deemed worker of the respondent, pursuant to Schedule 1, Clause 2 of the 1998 Act.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION (COMMISSION)

The matter was listed for conciliation/arbitration hearing on 27 January 2022.
The Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) was amended to claim weekly benefits compensation from 12 March 2019 to 30 April 2021.
The respondent sought to raise previously unnotified matters, being the applicant’s capacity for work and his pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) pursuant to section 289A(4) of the 1998 Act; and to rely on documents attached to Applications to Admit Late Documents dated 19 January 2022 and undated. The undated Application to…

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 King v Lloyd Drilling Constructions

Details

AGLC: King v Lloyd Drilling Constructions [2022] NSWPIC 177
Case: [2022] NSWPIC 177
Decision Date: 26 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of King v Lloyd Drilling Constructions involved the applicant, King, claiming weekly benefits for a closed period and a general order for medical expenses under section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The dispute centred on whether King qualified as a worker under section 4 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998, or as a deemed worker under Schedule 1, Clause 2 of the same act. The matter was heard in a relevant Australian court.

The court had to determine the applicability of various legal precedents to establish King's status. The court examined cases such as Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Company Pty Limited, Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Limited v Producers and Citizens Co-operative Insurance Co of Australia Limited, Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills, Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd, Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd, ZG Operations Australia v Jamsek, Turner v Stewardson, Higgins v North Coast Theatres & Drive-ins Pty Ltd, Pasqua v Morelli Constructions Pty Ltd, Davis v Pioneer Concrete, and Scerri v Cahill & another to resolve the dispute. The court considered whether King was employed by the respondent, Lloyd Drilling Constructions, or if he qualified as a deemed worker.

After careful consideration of the legal principles and precedents, the court found that King was either a worker employed by the respondent or a deemed worker under the applicable legislation. The court granted King weekly benefits pursuant to sections 36 and 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, as well as a general order for medical expenses under section 60 of the Act. This decision provided King with the necessary compensation for his injuries.

The court ordered Lloyd Drilling Constructions to pay King the weekly benefits and medical expenses as per the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders