Mars Australia Pty Limited v Knight - [2024] NSWPICPD 78

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Mars Australia Pty Limited v Knight [2024] NSWPICPD 78
APPELLANT:	Mars Australia Pty Limited
RESPONDENT:	Anthony Knight
INSURER:	Self-insured
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W5655/23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Acting Deputy President Geoffrey Parker SC
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	2 December 2024
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The Certificate of Determination dated 1 December 2023 is amended to substitute in order 1 the date “18 July 2022” for “20 September 2021”. 3. The Certificate of Determination is otherwise confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – adequacy of reasons – reasons delivered ex tempore – consideration of medical evidence – treatment of medical evidence – assessment of incapacity – discretion in refusing cross examination in Commission proceedings
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr J Catsanos SC, counsel
Bartier Perry Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr R Goodridge, counsel
Firths - The Compensation Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Knight v Mars Australia Pty Limited, 1 December 2023, W5655/23
MEMBER:	Mr M Wright
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	1 December 2023

INTRODUCTION

This appeal is from a determination of the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission) dated 1 December 2023.
The Member heard the matter on 30 October 2023 and delivered oral reasons for determination on 27 November 2023.
A Certificate of Determination dated 1 December 2023 was issued by the Commission, confirming the oral determination.
The Certificate of Determination provided:
“The determination of the Commission in this matter is as follows:
1. Pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act1987 (the 1987 Act), the [respondent] sustained injury to both knees as a result of his employment with the [appellant], deemed to have happened on 20 September 2021, pursuant to s 16 of the 1987 Act. The [respondent’s] employment with the [appellant] was the main contributing factor to the aggravation of the disease process of both his knees.
2.     Pursuant to s 36(1) of the 1987 Act, the [appellant] to pay the [respondent] weekly compensation for the period 18 July 2022 to 16 October 2022, at the rate of $1,792.51 per week.
3.     Pursuant to s 37(1) of the 1987 Act, the [appellant] to pay the [respondent] weekly compensation for the period 17 October 2022 to 27 November 2023, at the rate of $1,509.48 per week.
4.     Pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act, the [appellant] to pay for the costs of and incidental to the bilateral knee replacements recommended by Dr Lyons, including the surgery on 4 April 2023.”
The appeal seeks to have the Certificate of Determination and award of compensation of the Member dated 1 December 2023 revoked and in lieu thereof an award in favour of the appellant entered. In the alternative, the appellant seeks to have the matter remitted for redetermination by an alternative Member of the Commission.
For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed and the Member’s determination is confirmed.

PRELIMINARY RULINGS AND DIRECTIONS

The Member made a number of preliminary rulings.
Firstly,…

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 Mars Australia Pty Limited v Knight 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: [2024] NSWPICPD 78
Decision Date: 2 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Mars Australia Pty Limited v Knight, the dispute centred around the adequacy of reasons provided by the Commission in a workers' compensation matter. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Mars Australia Pty Limited, the insurer, challenged the Commission's decision to refuse cross-examination of a medical practitioner during the proceedings. The central issue was whether the Commission had adequately considered the medical evidence presented and whether there was sufficient justification for the refusal of cross-examination.

The court examined the nature of the Commission's reasoning, particularly whether the reasons were provided ex tempore, and if they were adequate. The court focused on how the Commission treated the medical evidence, particularly the assessment of the claimant's incapacity. It was necessary to determine if the Commission had correctly evaluated the medical evidence and exercised its discretion appropriately in declining cross-examination. The court held that the Commission's reasons were inadequate as they did not sufficiently address the medical evidence and the basis for assessing incapacity. The court found that the Commission had not adequately exercised its discretion in refusing cross-examination.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Commission for reconsideration, with specific directions regarding the assessment of the medical evidence and the exercise of the discretion to permit cross-examination. The decision underscored the importance of providing clear and comprehensive reasons in workers' compensation matters and highlighted the need for a balanced approach in assessing medical evidence and exercising discretion in procedural matters.

Orders