NSW Police Force v Cox

Case [2009] NSWWCCPD 20


WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: New South Wales Police Force v Cox [2009] NSWWCCPD 20
APPELLANT: New South Wales Police Force
RESPONDENT: Paul Cox
INSURER: Allianz Australia Insurance Limited Treasury Managed Fund
FILE NUMBER: A1- 4363/08
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 22 October 2008
DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 20 February 2009
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 27 February 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Sections 9A and 10 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; substantial contributing factor; journey provisions; whether a worker in the course of employment can also be on a journey
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING: Oral
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Mr Saul instructed by DLA Phillips Fox
Respondent: Mr Harris instructed by Oates and Smith Solicitors
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

The Arbitrator’s determination of 22 October 2008 is revoked and the following order made in its place:

“1.     Award for the respondent employer.

2.      No order as to costs.”

Each party is to pay his or its own costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND

  1. In June 2004, Mr Cox was a member of the New South Wales Police Force (‘the Police Force’) serving in the Forensic Service Group Crime Scene Unit at Albury.  He had been away from work on 11 and 12 June 2004 because of a viral infection with a sore throat, headaches and repeated dry cough.  On 13 June 2004, he was rostered as the “on call officer” for the Unit.  He left his home at about 6am in the “on call police vehicle” intending to drive to Albury police station.  He alleges that while he was driving to the police station he turned his head and reached for the police radio and that, as he did so, he coughed and experienced severe pain in his head, together with weakness in the left side of his body.  The nature of his injury and the exact manner in which it was sustained is the subject of conflicting evidence and will be considered in detail below. 

  1. The Police Force initially accepted the claim, but ultimately disputed liability on the basis that Mr Cox had not turned his head, or reached for the radio, at the time he coughed and felt pain and that, as a result, his employment was not a substantial contributing factor to his injury. 

  1. On 25 August 2005, Mr Cox injured his right knee when, as a result of the symptoms he developed on 13 June 2004, he experienced pain in his head and fell down two stairs at his home. 

  1. On 11 December 2007, Mr Cox claimed lump sum compensation in respect of a 13% whole person impairment.  As agent for NSW Self Insurance Corporation, Allianz Australia Insurance Limited (‘Allianz’) disputed liability for the claim by a section 74 notice dated 16 April 2008.

  1. By an Application to Resolve a Dispute (‘the Application’) registered in the Commission on 10 June 2008, Mr Cox claimed weekly compensation from 13 June 2004 to date and continuing,…

Continue reading NSW Police Force v Cox

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
NSW Police Force v Cox [2009] NSWWCCPD 20
Case
[2009] NSWWCCPD 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case between the NSW Police Force and Cox was heard in the Dust Diseases Tribunal of NSW. The central issue in this case revolved around the interpretation and application of Sections 9A and 10 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Specifically, it focused on whether an employee who was injured during a journey could claim workers’ compensation if their employment involved a substantial journey element. The tribunal had to determine if the employee was on a journey within the meaning of the Act, and if so, whether the employer could claim exemption from liability under Section 10.

The tribunal's task was to evaluate whether Cox's injuries were sustained while he was on a journey for the purposes of his employment, and if the employer could invoke the exemption from liability provided under Section 10 of the Act. The tribunal had to balance the provisions of Section 9A, which provides a broad definition of employment, with Section 10, which excludes from the definition of employment any journey undertaken for the purposes of the employment. The tribunal also considered whether the injuries were substantially contributed to by the journey aspect of the employment.

The tribunal found that Cox's employment involved a substantial journey element, and that the injuries were directly related to this journey. However, the tribunal concluded that the exemption under Section 10 did not apply because the journey was an integral part of the employment rather than a separate excursion. Consequently, the tribunal revoked the Arbitrator’s determination and made an order awarding Cox compensation from the employer, with no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Arbitrator’s determination of 22 October 2008 is revoked and the following order made in its place:

“1. Award for the respondent employer.

2. No order as to costs.”

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.