McHatton v APCD Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 285

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	McHatton v APCD Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 285
APPLICANT:	Craig McHatton
RESPONDENT:	APCD Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	29 May 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly benefits and medical expenses in relation to a psychological injury; fact of injury admitted, however, respondent raises defence pursuant to section 11A in relation to discipline; Held – on a common-sense evaluation of the causal chain including the lay and medical evidence, the applicant’s injury was predominantly caused by an email forwarded by his manager to the sales team on 5 May 2023 which stated the sales team would be subject to disciplinary action if they did not comply with the longstanding directions of the respondent with regards to notifying the national manager of their whereabouts when not in the office; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates followed; Smith v Roads and Traffic Authority of NSW discussed; the applicant’s perception that the email was targeted at him because of an interaction with his manager the day before the email was sent was the predominant cause of his injury; however, the applicant’s perception of the email is irrelevant when assessing whether it was reasonable; that process involves an objective analysis of the conduct having regard to established principles; Irwin v Director-General of Education NSWCC 14068/97, Commissioner of Police v Minahan, and Ritchie v Department of Community Services followed; having regard to the totality of the evidence, the proposed actions of the respondent with regards to discipline which were the predominant cause of the injury at issue, namely forwarding the email, were reasonable; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered a psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent, with a deemed date of injury of 5 May 2023. 2. The applicant's injury was caused by the reasonable actions of the respondent proposed to be taken with respect to discipline. 3. Award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In or about September 2020, Craig McHatton (the applicant) began working as the Queensland business development manager for APCD Pty Ltd (the respondent) which runs an IT assets business.
The claimant's role is sales-based and customer-facing. His responsibility is to generate sales and manage customer accounts. His direct supervisor is Mr Gary Claypole, the national sales manager of the respondent. It is Mr Claypole's interactions with the applicant in May 2023 which have led to the applicant sustaining a psychological injury, in particular, an email forwarded by Mr Claypole to the sales staff on 5 May 2023.
As noted, there is no question the applicant suffered a psychological injury. However, the respondent alleges the injury was caused by its reasonable actions with respect to discipline.
Additionally, should there be a finding in the applicant's favour on the question of liability, the degree of the applicant's incapacity is also in issue.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues…

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 McHatton v APCD Pty Ltd 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] NSWPIC 285
Decision Date: 29 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of McHatton v APCD Pty Ltd, the applicant sought weekly benefits and medical expenses for a psychological injury sustained in the course of employment. The respondent, APCD Pty Ltd, admitted the fact of injury but contested the claim by invoking a defence under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court was tasked with determining whether the disciplinary actions taken by the respondent, specifically an email sent to the sales team, were reasonable and whether this was the predominant cause of the applicant's psychological injury.

The primary legal issue was whether the disciplinary actions taken by the respondent constituted a reasonable management practice and whether such actions were the predominant cause of the applicant's psychological injury. The court considered the applicant's perception that the email was targeted at him personally and whether this perception played a role in the causation of his injury. The court also needed to evaluate the reasonableness of the respondent's actions under an objective standard, despite the applicant's subjective belief.

The court found that the email sent by the respondent to the sales team, which warned of disciplinary action for not complying with directions to notify the national manager of their whereabouts, was the predominant cause of the applicant's psychological injury. The court emphasised that the applicant's perception of being personally targeted was irrelevant to the objective assessment of the reasonableness of the respondent's actions. By applying a common-sense evaluation of the causal chain, including the lay and medical evidence, the court determined that the respondent's actions were reasonable. The court followed the principles established in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates, where it was held that the reasonableness of management actions should be assessed objectively.

The court concluded that the respondent's proposed disciplinary actions were reasonable and thus, the applicant's claim was dismissed. The court awarded costs to the respondent, APCD Pty Ltd.

Orders