Page v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer - [2021] NSWPIC 445

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Page v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer [2021] NSWPIC 445
APPLICANT:	Chloe Page
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Super Car Rides Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT:	Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer
MEMBER:	John Isaksen
DATE OF DECISION:	4 November 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Claim for weekly payments of compensation and medical expenses for an injury to the lumbar spine, shoulders and a psychiatric injury which occurred in New South Wales; worker travelled to towns and cities on the eastern seaboard of Australia in her work for the first respondent; whether worker entitled to benefits under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) while working and being injured in New South Wales; whether worker’s employment is connected to the state of New South Wales as required by section 9AA of the 1987 Act; reference to Martin v RJ Hibbens Pty Ltd and Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v O’Donohue; Held – worker not entitled to benefits under 1987 Act merely by being injured while working in New South Wales; worker failed to establish that she usually works or is usually based in New South Wales in her employment with the first respondent; first respondent’s principal place of business in the state of Queensland; awards for the first respondent and second respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. Pursuant to section 9AA (3)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the applicant does not usually work in the state of New South Wales in her employment with the first respondent. 2. Pursuant to section 9AA (3)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the applicant is not usually based in the state of New South Wales for the purposes of her employment with the first respondent. 3. Pursuant to section 9AA (3)(c) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the first respondent’s principal place of business in Australia is located in the state of Queensland. 4. The applicant’s employment with the first respondent is not connected with the state of New South Wales, and accordingly compensation is not payable to the applicant pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
ORDERS MADE:	1. Award for the first respondent. 2. Award for the second respondent.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Chloe Page, claims to have sustained an injury to her lower back and shoulders on 24 June 2021 due to the heavy lifting of equipment and suitcases while employed as a sales person with the first respondent, Super Car Rides Pty Ltd.
The applicant also claims to have sustained a psychological injury in the course of her employment with the first respondent as a result of her being required to reach unrealistic targets with little or no resources and support, and by bullying and harassment from officers of the respondent.
The applicant claims that she has been incapacitated for work as a result of her physical and psychological injuries since 5 July 2021, and claims weekly payments of compensation from 5 July 2021, along with the payment of her reasonably necessary medical expenses.
The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Page v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer 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: [2021] NSWPIC 445
Decision Date: 4 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Page v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer concerns a claim for weekly payments of compensation and medical expenses for an injury to the lumbar spine, shoulders, and a psychiatric injury, which occurred in New South Wales. The worker was employed by the first respondent and was traveling to towns and cities on the eastern seaboard of Australia in the course of her employment. The dispute revolves around whether the worker is entitled to benefits under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act) while working and being injured in New South Wales, and if her employment is connected to the state of New South Wales as required by section 9AA of the 1987 Act.

The legal issues before the court were whether the worker was entitled to benefits under the 1987 Act merely by being injured while working in New South Wales, and if she had established that she usually worked or was usually based in New South Wales in her employment with the first respondent. The court had to consider relevant case law, including Martin v RJ Hibbens Pty Ltd and Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v O’Donohue, to determine if the worker’s employment was connected to New South Wales as required by section 9AA of the 1987 Act.

The court found that the worker was not entitled to benefits under the 1987 Act merely by being injured while working in New South Wales. It was determined that the worker failed to establish that she usually works or is usually based in New South Wales in her employment with the first respondent, as the first respondent’s principal place of business was in Queensland. Consequently, the court held that the worker was not entitled to benefits under the 1987 Act, and awards were made in favour of the first and second respondents.

Orders