Nuku v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 37 min read
CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER 
CITATION: Nuku v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd & Ors [2024] NSWPIC 196
APPLICANT: Mele Nuku
RESPONDENT: Inghams Group Ltd
PRINCIPAL MEMBER: John Harris
DATE OF DECISION: 18 April 2024
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; the applicant worked in heavy and repetitive work over 18 years; allegations of injury to various body parts; medical evidence did not explain some allegations of injury; Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Ltd applied; finding of injury to arms/wrists and neck pursuant to section 4(b)(ii); capacity; use of histories of occupation experience contained in medical reports; Guthrie v Spence and section 43(2) of the Personal Injury Commission Act referred to; Byrom v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd not applied; findings made that applicant had an ability to work in suitable employment of 38 hours per week in light manual work assessed based on the minimum wage; Held – orders made for weekly compensation.

DETERMINATIONS MADE:

The Commission determines:

Findings

1. The employment is the main contributing factor to the aggravation of the disease within the meaning of s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) for the hands, wrists and cervical spine deemed to have occurred on 1 February 2022.

2.     The applicant has not satisfied that the employment was the main contributing factor to either the contraction or the aggravation, deterioration, acceleration or exacerbation of the disease in the knees and lumbar spine pursuant to s 4(b) of the 1987 Act.

Orders

3.     Order in favour of the respondent in respect of the allegation of injury to the knees and the lumbar spine.

4.     The respondent pays the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 of the 1987 Act as follows:

(a)    $219.54 per week from 2 May 2022 to 30 June 2022;

(b)    $179.54 per week from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023, and

(c)    $109.54 per week from 1 July 2023 to date and continuing.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

  1. Ms Mele Nuku (the applicant) was employed by Inghams Group Ltd (the respondent) from August 2004 to February 2022.

  2. The nature of the heavy repetitive work duties was described by the applicant in the following uncontracted manner:[1]

    [1] Application, pages 1-2.

    “My employment with the Respondent involved frequent and strenuous use of my body including the use of my right wrist, right shoulder, left wrist, let shoulder, neck, back, left leg, and right leg and was stressful….

    Working on the turkey boning line involved the following, which were all done standing:

    (a)  There were four stages on the line and we changed position every half hour. We also change between boning out the white meat from the upper half of the turkey, and boning out the dark meat from the bottom half of the bird, although the duties with each were very similar.

    (b)   The first job was hanging the turkeys. The turkeys were already cut into two (i.e. into upper and lower halves). The halves would drop from a…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Nuku v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd 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
[2024] NSWPIC 196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Nuku brought an application against Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd in the Workers Compensation Magistrates Court, claiming compensation for various injuries sustained during 18 years of heavy and repetitive work. The applicant alleged injuries to multiple body parts, though medical evidence did not adequately explain some of the claims. The case was concerned with whether the applicant’s injuries were work-related and the extent of those injuries. Additionally, the court had to determine the applicant's capacity to work and the appropriate weekly compensation.

The court examined whether the applicant's injuries were caused by his employment and fell under the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The case referenced Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Ltd, which assisted in determining whether the applicant's injuries were work-related. The court concluded that the applicant had sustained injuries to his arms, wrists, and neck under section 4(b)(ii) of the Act. The assessment of the applicant's capacity to work was based on the medical reports and the histories of occupation experience, drawing on Guthrie v Spence and section 43(2) of the Personal Injury Commission Act. The court found that the applicant could perform light manual work for 38 hours a week, assessed on the minimum wage rate.

The court held that Byrom v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd was not applicable to the case, and made specific findings regarding the applicant's ability to work. Weekly compensation was ordered based on the findings of the court. The determination was made that the applicant was entitled to compensation for his work-related injuries, with the specific amount of weekly compensation detailed in the orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.