Milo v Arnotts Biscuits Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 88

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Milo v Arnotts Biscuits Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 88
APPLICANT:	Leoncio Milo
RESPONDENT:	Arnotts Biscuits Limited
MEMBER:	Brett Batchelor
DATE OF DECISION:	17 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for permanent loss compensation pursuant to section 66 as a result of psychological injury arising out of or in the course of the applicant’s employment with the respondent; the respondent defended the claim relying on section 11A claiming that the conceded psychological injury suffered by the applicant was as a result of reasonable action taken against him with respect to discipline and/or dismissal; Held – the actions of the respondent with respect to discipline and dismissal were not the whole or predominant cause of the applicant’s psychological injury; applicant suffered primary psychological injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent; matter remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of permanent impairment as a result of such injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained primary psychological injury deemed to have occurred on 5 October 2022 arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent. 2. The matter is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor for assessment of psychological injury deemed to have occurred on 5 October 2022. 3. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor are: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; (b) Reply and attached documents; (c) Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 6 February 2025 and attached documents, and (d) Application to Lodge Additional Documents dated 7 February 2025 and attached documents. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Leoncio Milo (the applicant/Mr Milo) commenced work as a casual employer with Arnotts Biscuits Limited (the respondent/Arnotts) in about 1991. He became a machine operator and mixer in 1992, and continued in such employment until he resigned on 5 October 2022.
As at September 2022 the applicant’s manufacturing manager was Simar Dhanano (Simar), his line leader Ben Morgan (Ben), and acting line leader Mulita Chakamanon (known as Candy).
The applicant’s duties included operating mixing machines, forming, baking, and relieving the operators. His normal working hours were eight hours on day shift, from 7.00am until 3.00pm. There was an obligation to attend work about 6.30am to sign on and engage in a pre-shift meeting before starting work.
Mr Milo describes the physical aspects of his duties which involved repetitive and extensive lifting and carrying of product required for the manufacture of Arnotts biscuits. From June 2022 until September 2022 he requested and received physiotherapy treatment due to intrusive shoulder, neck, and back pain. This treatment coincided with the introduction of “new product” in July 2022.
On the morning of 9 September 2022 the applicant’s duties included relieving operators, and he spoke to “Clarence”, asking him to relieve two of the mixers, “Gerry” (Gerry Erminato)…

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 Milo v Arnotts Biscuits 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: [2025] NSWPIC 88
Decision Date: 17 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Milo v Arnotts Biscuits Ltd was heard in a relevant workers' compensation tribunal. The applicant, Milo, brought a claim for compensation for permanent loss due to a psychological injury sustained during his employment with Arnotts Biscuits Ltd. The respondent, Arnotts Biscuits Ltd, contested the claim, asserting that the psychological injury was a result of reasonable disciplinary action or dismissal, and thus exempt under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The primary legal issue before the tribunal was whether the psychological injury sustained by Milo was a result of actions taken by the respondent in the course of employment or whether it was due to disciplinary action or dismissal. The tribunal had to determine if the injury was work-related under section 66 of the Act, or whether it fell within the exemption provided under section 11A due to the nature of the disciplinary action or dismissal.

The tribunal found that the actions taken by Arnotts Biscuits Ltd regarding discipline and dismissal were not the whole or predominant cause of Milo's psychological injury. It was determined that Milo had suffered a primary psychological injury that arose out of or in the course of his employment. Consequently, the tribunal ruled that the injury was compensable under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and not exempted by section 11A. The matter was remitted to the President for a referral to a Medical Assessor to evaluate the extent of permanent impairment resulting from the psychological injury.

The final orders included the referral of Milo's case to a Medical Assessor for the assessment of permanent impairment due to the psychological injury, and the rejection of the respondent's defense based on section 11A. This decision ensures that Milo's claim for compensation is properly assessed and that he receives the necessary support for his work-related psychological injury.

Orders