Ooi v NEC Business Solutions Ltd (No 2)

The case involves Ooi as the appellant and NEC Business Solutions Ltd as the respondent. The appellant was previously awarded workers’ compensation in 2006 by the Commission. The appellant applied for reconsideration of the decision under section 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The appellant claimed that the Commission failed to consider various aspects of her duties and conditions of employment as “other relevant considerations” in its decision. She sought weekly compensation, medical and related expenses, permanent impairment compensation, payment for pain and suffering, psychological injury, and past and future economic loss.

The court had to determine whether there was new evidence that could not have been reasonably obtained prior to the original decision, which would likely lead to a different result. The appellant relied on several sections of the 1998 and 1987 Acts, including sections 3, 4, 9, 9A, 11A, 350(3), 352(6) and 352(7) of the 1998 Act. The court had to assess the significance of the new evidence provided by the appellant and whether it was sufficient to warrant reconsideration.

The court found that the appellant’s submissions did not establish that the new evidence was of such a nature that it could not have been reasonably obtained prior to the decision. The court also found that the new evidence did not establish that the Commission’s decision was wrong or unjust. The court noted that the appellant’s submissions were largely based on her own opinions and perceptions, which were not supported by expert evidence. The court held that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proving that the new evidence was significant and that it would likely lead to a different result. The court refused the appellant’s application for reconsideration.

The court's decision was that the appellant's application pursuant to section 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to reconsider the Commission’s decision dated 26 June 2006 is refused.