Narse v ANZ Roofing Pty Ltd - [2023] NSWPIC 119

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Narse v ANZ Roofing Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 119
APPLICANT:	Rami Narse
RESPONDENT:	ANZ Roofing Pty Limited
Member:	John Isaksen
DATE OF DECISION:	24 March 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for lump sum payment for permanent impairment of the lumbar spine, cervical spine, right knee and right shoulder; worker sustains injury in a motor vehicle accident after leaving his place of employment; workers compensation benefits paid for about 15 months after accident; whether injury arose out of or in the course of the worker’s employment; reference to Comcare v PVWY; or in the alternative, whether the worker sustained injury on a journey with a real and substantial connection between the worker’s employment and the incident out of which the injury arose; reference to Bina v ISS Property Services P/L; Held – worker did not sustain an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment; no real and substantial connection between the worker’s employment and the incident out of which the injury arose; award for the respondent.
determinations made:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant did not sustain an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment with the respondent on 1 May 2020. 2. There was no real and substantial connection between the applicant’s employment and the incident out of which the applicant’s injury arose in the journey undertaken by the applicant from his place of employment to his place of abode on 1 May 2020. The Commission orders: 1. An award for the respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Rami Narse, the applicant in these proceedings, makes a claim for a lump sum payment for 41% whole person impairment pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) as a result of injury he claims to have sustained in a motor vehicle accident at Hornsby on 1 May 2020 while in the course of his employment with the respondent, ANZ Roofing Pty Ltd.
Mr Narse claims that an officer of the respondent gave approval for him to drive from the respondent’s warehouse in Hornsby to the Thornleigh store of Bunnings to obtain some materials for a forthcoming job, and while undertaking that trip he was involved in a motor vehicle accident.
The respondent initially accepted liability for the claim made by Mr Narse but a dispute notice was issued by icare, on behalf of the respondent, on 14 October 2021 whereby liability was denied on the grounds that Mr Narse was on a journey from his place of employment to his home at Rosehill and that the injury occurred during an interruption or deviation from that journey that was unconnected to his employment, and that there was no real and substantial connection between his employment and the injury he sustained.
The respondent also denied liability on the grounds that the injury sustained by
Mr Narse did not arise out of or in the course of his employment because the respondent had not approved…

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 Narse v ANZ Roofing Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Narse v ANZ Roofing Pty Ltd [2023] NSWPIC 119
Case: [2023] NSWPIC 119
Decision Date: 24 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Narse v ANZ Roofing Pty Ltd was heard in the Fair Work Commission, where the applicant sought a lump sum payment for permanent impairments sustained in the lumbar spine, cervical spine, right knee, and right shoulder. The applicant had been involved in a motor vehicle accident after leaving his place of employment and had received workers' compensation benefits for approximately 15 months post-accident. The central legal issue before the court was whether the injuries arose out of or in the course of the worker's employment and, if not, whether the injuries occurred during a journey that had a real and substantial connection with the worker's employment.

The court considered the precedent set by Comcare v PVWY, which sets out the criteria for determining if an injury is related to employment. The court also examined the case of Bina v ISS Property Services P/L to understand the concept of a journey with a real and substantial connection to employment. After careful analysis, the court concluded that the applicant's injuries did not arise out of or in the course of their employment. Additionally, there was no real and substantial connection between the worker's employment and the incident that caused the injuries. Consequently, the court ruled in favour of the respondent, ANZ Roofing Pty Ltd, and dismissed the applicant's claim.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the applicant's claim for a lump sum payment for permanent impairments and the costs associated with the proceedings. This decision reinforces the need for a direct and substantial link between the employment and the incident for a claim to be successful under workers' compensation laws.

Orders