Lisson v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)

Case [2025] NSWPIC 300


CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 
CITATION: Lisson v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2025] NSWPIC 300
APPLICANT: Lisson
RESPONDENT: State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force)
MEMBER: Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION: 27 June 2025

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (WC Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (WIM Act); applicant a police officer; claim for various physical injuries and a psychological injury; physical injuries alleged to be due to nature and conditions of employment; whether applicant suffered an injury within the meaning of section 4 of the WC Act; psychological injury due to exposure to various trauma; diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); claim not made until 8 years after employment ceased; section 254 and 261 of the WIM Act; applicant claimed entitlement to dual benefits; Held – award for the respondent for physical injuries; applicant had failed to make a claim due to ignorance, mistake or other reasonable cause; weekly payments awarded for psychological injury.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

1.     Award for the respondent in respect of the claimed injuries to the cervical spine, shoulders, lower back, both knees and hips.

2. The applicant failed to notify of his psychological injury before he voluntarily left employment but he has satisfied s 254(2) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998.

3.     The applicant failed to make a claim within six months after the psychological injury was deemed to have occurred but the failure was occasioned by ignorance, mistake or other reasonable cause and the injury resulted in serious and permanent disablement.

4.     The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation in the following amounts:

(a)   for the period 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016 at the rate of $55.88 per week;

(b)   for the period 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 at the rate of $941.36 per week;

(c)   for the period 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018 at the rate of $846.77 per week;

(d)   for the period 1 July 2018 to 30 June 2019 at the rate of $688.23 per week, and

(e)   for the period 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 at the rate of $567.94 per week.

5.     The respondent is to pay the applicant’s costs as agreed or assessed.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Lisson’s claim for compensation is similar to many arising out of employment with the NSW Police Force. He worked for a period of about 14 years in the employ of the respondent. He was exposed to violence, trauma, and other confronting events. He also undertook the usual requirements of a Police Officer, including general duties activities like restraining offenders, running, jumping and the like. He was required to undertake defensive tactics training, like all officers.

  2. Mr Lisson was transferred out of general duties into covert premises entry, breaking into houses, cars and the like so that experts could safely enter and install listening and other surveillance devices.

  3. Mr Lisson claims he suffered a psychological injury in his…

Details
AGLC
Blake Brian Lisson v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force) [2025] NSWPIC 300
Case
[2025] NSWPIC 300
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lisson v State of New South Wales (NSW Police Force), the applicant, a former police officer, sought compensation for both physical injuries and a psychological injury attributed to the nature and conditions of their employment. The claim was lodged with the Dust Diseases Tribunal of New South Wales, which had jurisdiction under the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The applicant argued that the physical injuries were a direct consequence of their employment, while the psychological injury, diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), stemmed from exposure to various traumatic events during their service. Notably, the claim for these injuries was not made until eight years after the applicant had ceased employment, raising questions about the timeliness and validity of the claims under the relevant legislative framework.

The primary legal issues before the tribunal included whether the applicant's physical injuries qualified as 'injury' under section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and whether the psychological injury was compensable under the same Act. Another significant issue was the applicant's delay in making the claim, and whether this delay was justified due to ignorance, mistake, or other reasonable cause, as outlined in sections 254 and 261 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. Additionally, the tribunal had to determine if the applicant was entitled to dual benefits under the Acts.

The tribunal found that while the applicant had not established a causal link between the physical injuries and the nature and conditions of their employment, the psychological injury was indeed attributable to the employment conditions. Regarding the delayed claim, the tribunal concluded that the applicant's delay in asserting the psychological injury claim was not due to ignorance, mistake, or other reasonable cause. Therefore, the tribunal awarded the applicant weekly compensation payments for the psychological injury but did not grant compensation for the physical injuries. The tribunal held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the physical injuries were due to the nature and conditions of their employment, and thus, no compensation was awarded for these injuries.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.