Maatta v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare) - [2021] NSWPIC 306

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Maatta v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare) [2021] NSWPIC 306
APPLICANT:	Michael Maatta
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Owen Dwyer
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Stephen Robb (discontinued)
THIRD RESPONDENT:	Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare)
MEMBER:	Elizabeth Beilby
DATE OF DECISION:	25 August 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Consideration of worker and deemed worker provisions; essential factor being a contract of service; Held - no evidence of intention to create legal relations; award for the first and third respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The applicant has not discharged the onus of proof in relation to establishing that he was a ‘worker’ or a ‘deemed worker’. 2. Award for the first respondent and third respondent in respect of the claim.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Michael Maatta (the applicant) was injured on a building site in Katoomba on 16 May 2012. He sustained a penetrating injury to his eye together with a claimed chronic adjustment disorder.
At the time of the injury the applicant was working as a carpenter using a power saw which hit a staple or nail in wood. Whilst the applicant was wearing safety glasses, a piece of metal flew out behind the glasses and penetrated the applicant’s left eye.
The applicant says that he worked as an employee or was a “deemed worker” for Owen Dwyer Builders from January 2009 (the first respondent). An employment relationship is denied by Mr Dwyer saying that he only ever engaged subcontractors who were required to have their own insurance.
The applicant says that he was requested to attend the job site in Walgett Street Katoomba by Steve Robb who was a carpenter on the day that the injury occurred. He says he understood that the work was for Owen Dywer.
Mr Dwyer says that he did not request nor encourage Mr Maatta to attend the job site and had no involvement with him being there.
The real dispute therefore is if the applicant is a ‘worker’ or ‘deemed worker’ for the purposes of being covered by workers compensation insurance.
The applicant makes a claim for whole person impairment and also weekly benefits.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issue remains in dispute:
(a) is the applicant a worker or deemed worker?

Matters previously notified as disputed

The parties agreed that if the applicant was successful in his claim that the matter would be referred to a Medical Assessor for whole person impairment assessment. The claim would then return for a further telephone conference to assist with the dispute so far as weekly compensation is concerned.
The claim against the second respondent, Stephen Murray Robb trading as Stephen Robb Quality Carpentry was discontinued at the arbitration.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

11.I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to the dispute to a settlement acceptable to all…

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 Maatta v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare) 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: [2021] NSWPIC 306
Decision Date: 25 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Maatta v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer (iCare), the dispute involved the interpretation of the workers compensation provisions, specifically concerning whether the applicant was a worker or a deemed worker for the purposes of the Workers Compensation Act. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that she was entitled to workers compensation benefits for injuries sustained during a work-related incident. The Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer, iCare, contended that the applicant was not a worker or a deemed worker under the Act.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant had a contract of service with the first respondent that would make her a worker or a deemed worker under the Workers Compensation Act. This involved determining whether there was an intention to create legal relations between the applicant and the first respondent, which is an essential factor for such a classification. The court had to consider the nature of the relationship between the parties and whether the applicant was effectively employed by the first respondent.

The court concluded that there was no evidence of an intention to create legal relations between the applicant and the first respondent, which was necessary to establish a contract of service. As such, the applicant did not qualify as a worker or a deemed worker under the Act. The court found in favour of the respondents, awarding costs to the first and third respondents. The applicant's claim for workers compensation benefits was therefore dismissed.

Orders