NSW Police Force v Hain

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: NSW Police Force v Hain [2015] NSWWCCPD 11
APPELLANT: NSW Police Force
RESPONDENT: Derek Peter Hain
INSURER: Employers Mutual Ltd
FILE NUMBER: A1-2224/14
ARBITRATOR: Mr J Harris
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 23 September 2014
DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: 11 February 2015
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 16 February 2015
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Police officer injured while playing football; unchallenged finding that injury arose out of employment; whether employment a substantial contributing factor to the injury; s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; alleged failure to give reasons
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING: Oral
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Mr P Mansfield, instructed by Bartier Perry
Respondent: Mr S Hunt, instructed by MRM Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.     The Arbitrator’s determination of 23 September 2014 is confirmed.

2.     The appellant employer is to pay the respondent worker’s costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST.

INTRODUCTION

  1. The respondent worker, Senior Constable Derek Hain, is a senior constable with the NSW Police Force, the appellant. He ruptured his Achilles tendon while playing in a rugby league match on 17 July 2013 (the match).

  2. The match had been organised by police officers to raise funds for NSW Police Legacy Ltd (the Police Legacy), a charitable organisation established to support the families of police officers who have suffered a loss. It provides benefits, services and advocacy to those in its care and recognises the unique role of police, both serving and retired, in the community and the risks associated with the role. It is accepted that the Police Legacy is not part of the NSW Police Force.

  3. The issues before the Arbitrator were whether Senior Constable Hain’s injury arose out of his employment with the appellant and, if so, whether his employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The first issue arose under s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) and the second under s 9A of that Act. The Arbitrator found in favour of Senior Constable Hain on both issues. The appeal has only challenged the finding on the second issue. For the reasons explained below, the appeal is unsuccessful.

BACKGROUND

  1. The essential facts, as either accepted by the parties or found by the Arbitrator, were that:

    (a)     the Police Legacy is considered by members of the NSW Police Force to be a “worthy charity” (T3.32) (all references to the transcript are, unless otherwise stated, to the transcript of the Arbitrator’s oral decision delivered on 19 September 2014);

    (b)     organisation of the match was initiated by Constable Russell in a “Command wide” email sent on 30 January 2013, authorised by Sergeant Sierota, in which he proposed a game of rugby league between police officers from the Oxley Local Area Command (LAC) (the Oxley Cods) and the Hunter Valley LAC (the Hunter Valley Broncos) to raise money for the Police Legacy;

    (c)     an undated document under the heading of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read NSW Police Force v Hain and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2015] NSWWCCPD 11
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of NSW Police Force v Hain, the issue before the Industrial Court of New South Wales was whether a police officer who was injured during a game of football was entitled to compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The officer argued that his injury arose out of his employment, while the employer contended that his employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The Industrial Court was required to determine whether the injury was work-related, as well as whether the Arbitrator had provided adequate reasons for their decision.

The court examined the definition of "injury arising out of employment" under section 9A of the Act, which requires a causal connection between the injury and the employment. The court found that there was an unchallenged finding that the injury arose out of the employment, and that the officer's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The court also considered whether the Arbitrator had provided sufficient reasons for their decision, and found that there was no error in the reasons provided.

The Industrial Court confirmed the Arbitrator's determination that the officer was entitled to compensation, and ordered the employer to pay the officer's costs of the appeal. The court held that the officer's employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, and that the Arbitrator had provided adequate reasons for their decision. The court found no merit in the employer's argument that the officer had failed to give reasons for their decision. The final orders of the court were that the Arbitrator's determination was confirmed, and that the employer was to pay the officer's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Arbitrator’s determination of 23 September 2014 is confirmed.

2. The appellant employer is to pay the respondent worker’s costs of the appeal, assessed at $2,530 plus GST.

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.