| 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
- AGLC
- NSW Police Force v Cox [2009] NSWWCCPD 20
- Case
- [2009] NSWWCCPD 20
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.