Miller v Westpac Banking Corporation

Link copied
Case Copied 39 min read
CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 

Citation:

Miller v Westpac Banking Corporation [2023] NSWPIC 356

APPLICANT: Deborah Lee Miller
RESPONDENT: Westpac Banking Corporation
Member: Michael Moore

DATE OF DECISION:

20 July 2023

CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for lump sum compensation for a psychological injury; respondent admits that the applicant suffered a primary psychological injury arising out of or in the course of the applicant’s employment; the respondent’s defence to the claim was under section 11A on the basis that the injury was sustained wholly or predominantly as a consequence of reasonable action taken by the respondent with respect to performance appraisal or proposed transfer; the pleaded date of injury predated the proposed transfer so claim was limited to a defence based on reasonable actions taken or proposed to be taken with respect to performance appraisal; Held – the identified actions of the respondent did not constitute a process of performance appraisal and were more accurately viewed as management of one aspect of the applicant’s work performance; the actions were not a limited discrete process as held in Irwin v Director-General of School Education per Geraghty J; further held that in any event the identified actions by the respondent as constituting “performance appraisal” were not shown on the balance of probabilities to be the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s injury; award for the applicant with referral to the matter for assessment of whole of person impairment by a Medical Assessor.

determinations made:

The Commission determines:

1.     The applicant suffered a psychological injury arising out of or in the course of her employment.

2. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows:

(a)    Date of Injury: 25 February 2020 (deemed).

(b)    Body systems/ parts: psychological /psychiatric.

(c)    Method of Assessment: whole person impairment.

3.   The following additional documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are:

(a)    Amended Application to Resolve a Dispute and attachments;

(b)    Reply and attachments;

(c)    Application to Admit Late Documents dated 6 April 2023, and

(d)    Application to Admit Late Documents dated 17 March 2023.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Deborah Lee Miller (the applicant) was born in 1971 and is presently 52 years of age.

  2. The applicant commenced employment with St George Bank in approximately May 2001 working in the personal lending division based in Kogarah New South Wales.

  3. It is not in issue that St George Bank was eventually acquired by Westpac Banking Corporation (the respondent) and it appears that the applicant continued working in the same role post the acquisition.

  4. In the statement attached to the Application to Resolve a Dispute (the application) the applicant described her duties as follows;

    “usual duties involved the following:

    Incoming call centre lending banker, roll was to receiving calls up to 70 calls a day, regarding all banking, financial, Internet banking, Change in Interest rates, calculating and changing repayments…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Miller v Westpac Banking Corporation 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
[2023] NSWPIC 356
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Miller v Westpac Banking Corporation, the applicant, Miller, sought a lump sum compensation for a psychological injury arising from their employment. Westpac admitted that Miller had suffered a primary psychological injury in the course of their employment but contested the claim under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The bank argued that the injury was sustained wholly or predominantly as a consequence of reasonable actions taken regarding a performance appraisal or a proposed transfer. The court had to determine whether the actions taken by Westpac constituted a performance appraisal and whether these actions were the predominant cause of Miller's psychological injury.

The court considered whether the actions taken by Westpac were part of a performance appraisal process or merely part of managing Miller's work performance. The court held that the actions were not a discrete process of performance appraisal as outlined in the decision of Irwin v Director-General of School Education, but rather part of managing a specific aspect of Miller's job performance. Furthermore, the court found that even if these actions were considered part of a performance appraisal, they were not shown to be the whole or predominant cause of Miller's injury. The court concluded that Westpac's actions did not meet the threshold for exclusion under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court awarded Miller compensation for the psychological injury, and referred the matter to a Medical Assessor for an assessment of whole of person impairment. This decision underscores the importance of distinguishing between performance management and performance appraisal, and the need for clear evidence that any actions taken in the course of employment were the predominant cause of the psychological injury.

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.