Morris v Sika Australia Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 539

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Morris v Sika Australia Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 539
APPLICANT:	Sean Morris
RESPONDENT:	Sika Australia Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	10 October 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; psychological injury; claim for weekly compensation and medical expenses; whether claim made in time; discussion surrounding correct deemed date of injury; whether date the applicant says he first experienced symptoms or date of initial incapacity; whether applicant’s employment was the main contributing factor to his condition; whether medical basis for assertion to contrary by respondent accords with the evidence; whether the injury was caused by perception of real events; whether the applicant’s injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the respondent’s reasonable actions with respect to transfer and/or provision of employment benefits; whether a temporal basis for the section 11A defence exists; whether the applicant is incapacitated for employment and if so to what extent; Held – applicant did not suffer incapacity in relation to his condition or receive a diagnosis of any psychological condition until 22 January 2025, which is the correct deemed date of injury; Haddad v the GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd followed; the evidence discloses the applicant was and remains totally incapacitated for employment and accordingly the respondent will be ordered to pay weekly compensation as claimed; respondent is to pay the applicant’s medical and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission (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 22 January 2025. 2. At the date of his injury, the applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings were $2,204.00 per week. 3. The applicant’s injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by the reasonable actions of the respondent with respect to transfer and/or employment benefits. 4. The defence pursuant to s 254 and s 261 of the Workplace Injury Management andWorkers Compensation Act 1998 is unsuccessful. 5. As a result of his injury, the applicant has been totally incapacitated for employment from 22 January 2025 to date and continuing. 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as follows: (a) from 22 January 2025 to 31 March 2025 at a rate of $2,093.80 per week, and (b) from 1 April 2025 to 22 April 2025 at the rate of $2,099.50 per week. 7. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 as follows: (a) from 23 April 2025 to 30 September 2025 at the rate of $1,768 per week, and (b) from 1 October 2025 to date and continuing at the rate of $1,792 per week. 8. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s…

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 Morris v Sika Australia 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: [2025] NSWPIC 539
Decision Date: 10 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Morris v Sika Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant, Morris, sought weekly compensation and reimbursement of medical expenses for a psychological injury sustained during his employment with Sika Australia Pty Ltd. The dispute arose under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, with the court tasked with determining whether Morris’s claim was made within the statutory time limits, identifying the correct deemed date of injury, and assessing the extent of his incapacity for employment.

The central legal issues for the court’s consideration were the identification of the correct deemed date of injury, whether Morris’s employment was the main contributing factor to his condition, and whether Morris was incapacitated for employment. The court also needed to determine whether Morris’s psychological injury was caused by the perception of real events or if it was predominantly caused by Sika Australia Pty Ltd’s actions regarding the transfer and/or provision of employment benefits. Additionally, the court examined whether there was a temporal basis for Sika Australia Pty Ltd’s section 11A defence and the extent of Morris’s incapacity for employment.

The court found that Morris did not suffer incapacity in relation to his condition or receive a diagnosis of any psychological condition until 22 January 2025, establishing this as the correct deemed date of injury. The court relied on the decision in Haddad v the GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd, confirming that the evidence indicated Morris was and remains totally incapacitated for employment. Consequently, the court ordered Sika Australia Pty Ltd to pay weekly compensation as claimed by Morris. Furthermore, the court directed Sika Australia Pty Ltd to pay Morris’s medical and treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of Morris, ordering Sika Australia Pty Ltd to provide weekly compensation and to cover Morris’s medical expenses, reflecting the total incapacity for employment and the correct deemed date of injury.

Orders