Mueller v Bunnings Group Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 114

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Mueller v Bunnings Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 114
APPLICANT:	Jayne Mueller
RESPONDENT:	Bunnings Group Limited
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	Josephine Bamber
DATE OF DECISION:	27 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation for psychological injury where the respondent admits injury but raises a defence under section 11A; respondent also disputes that the applicant has an entitlement to weekly compensation asserting she has capacity for suitable employment; Held – award for the applicant; the respondent had not discharged its onus of proof that the whole or predominant cause of the psychological injury was as a result of discipline; Hamad v Q Catering Pty Ltd applied; finding that the applicant has no current capacity for employment and has an entitlement to weekly compensation pursuant to section 37(1).
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent has not established a defence under s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The applicant is entitled to compensation for her agreed psychological injury with a deemed date of injury of 2 May 2024. 3. The applicant has no current capacity for employment. 4. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 at 80% of her agreed pre-injury average weekly earnings of $867, as indexed from time to time, from 22 October 2024 to date and continuing. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Jayne Mueller, the applicant, was employed with the respondent, Bunnings Group Limited, since mid-2020 as a casual team member. From [80] to [83] of her first statement the applicant describes her prior mental health issues.[1] She says prior to starting at the respondent’s Kembla Grange store in late 2022 she was managing her mental health. She had not taken medication for years and when the issues started at Bunnings, she had to
[1] ARD p 10.
re-start her medication.
In 2022 she experienced inappropriate conduct towards herself from two male members of the staff at the Kembla Grange store. In her statement dated 22 October 2024 the applicant describes this conduct and also how she was treated by other staff after she made complaints about this behaviour. She lodged a workers compensation claim in March 2023 and re-started treatment with her psychologist, Corinna Lancaster, and had a few months off work. Thereafter, she was transferred to various other stores.
She went overseas in October 2023 and on her return she was transferred to the Nowra store. Her present psychological injury claim relates to events at the Nowra store. The respondent agrees she sustained a psychological injury in the form of an aggravation of her pre-existing condition. The deemed date of injury is 2 May 2024.
The issue in dispute is whether there is a defence under s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) raised by the respondent regarding reasonable action taken by the respondent…

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.

Continue reading Mueller v Bunnings Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Mueller v Bunnings Group Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 114
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 114
Decision Date: 27 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mueller v Bunnings Group Ltd, the applicant, Ms Mueller, sought weekly compensation for a psychological injury she sustained during her employment. The respondent, Bunnings Group Ltd, conceded that Ms Mueller had suffered a psychological injury but argued that the predominant cause of her condition was a disciplinary action taken against her, as per section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Furthermore, the respondent contested her entitlement to weekly compensation, claiming that she was capable of suitable employment. The case was heard in the Workers Compensation Commission of Victoria.

The court was tasked with determining whether the psychological injury sustained by Ms Mueller was predominantly caused by the disciplinary action, and if not, whether she was entitled to weekly compensation. This required an examination of the evidence presented by both parties and an application of the relevant statutory provisions, particularly section 11A and section 37(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The court found that the respondent had failed to discharge the onus of proof that the predominant cause of Ms Mueller's psychological injury was the disciplinary action. In reaching this decision, the court applied the principles set out in Hamad v Q Catering Pty Ltd, which emphasised the need for a clear causal link between the disciplinary action and the psychological injury. The court also concluded that Ms Mueller had no current capacity for employment and was therefore entitled to weekly compensation under section 37(1) of the Act.

As a result of the court's determination, Ms Mueller was awarded weekly compensation. The court found in her favour, rejecting the respondent's defence and affirming her entitlement to compensation.

Orders