Morris v Woolworths Group Limited

In the case of Morris v Woolworths Group Limited, the primary dispute before the court was whether the plaintiff had sustained a compensable injury during his employment with the defendant. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of New South Wales. The plaintiff alleged that he had suffered a compensable injury while working at the defendant's store, and subsequently claimed workers' compensation. The defendant, Woolworths Group Limited, denied the plaintiff's claim, asserting that he had not sustained any injury during the course of his employment.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff had successfully discharged the onus of proof to establish that he had sustained a compensable injury as defined under section 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court was required to assess the evidence presented, including contemporaneous documents, to determine the validity of the plaintiff's claim. The court considered the principles outlined in Department of Education and Training v Ireland [2008] NSWWCCPD 134, which emphasised the importance of contemporaneous documentation in supporting a claim for workers' compensation. Additionally, the court referred to the approach to interpreting contemporaneous documents as discussed in Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 403 and ET-China.com International Holdings Ltd v Cheung [2021] NSWCA 24.

The court found that the plaintiff had not discharged the onus of proof to establish that he had sustained a compensable injury. The analysis of the contemporaneous documents revealed inconsistencies and a lack of direct evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim. The court held that the evidence provided by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish the existence of an injury within the meaning of the Act. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for workers' compensation was dismissed. The court ordered that the plaintiff bear the costs of the proceedings.