Parsons v Dell Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 61 min read
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Parsons v Dell Australia Pty Ltd [2020] NSWWCCPD 2
APPELLANT: Jason Parsons
RESPONDENT: Dell Australia Pty Ltd
INSURER: AAI Limited trading as GIO – agent for the Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer
FILE NUMBER: A1-1588/19
SENIOR ARBITRATOR: Mr G Capel
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 14 June 2019
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 15 January 2020
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Section 350(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 – the exercise of discretion to reconsider a Certificate of Determination – factors to consider Samuel v Sebel Furniture Ltd [2006] NSWWCCPD 141; 5 DDCR 482 applied; whether error of discretion – Raulston v Toll Pty Ltd [2011] NSWWCCPD 25; 10 DDCR 156 applied
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant:
Ian Collins Solicitor
Respondent:
Mr A Combe, counsel
Hicksons Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1. The appellant’s application made pursuant to s 352(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to adduce further evidence on appeal is refused.

2.    The Certificate of Determination dated 14 June 2019 is confirmed.

INTRODUCTION

  1. Mr Jason Parsons (the appellant) brought proceedings by way of a Miscellaneous Application (application for reconsideration), seeking to have a previous Certificate of Determination (COD) dated 3 August 2015 issued by Ms Annette Farrell, Deputy Registrar, in matter no 2703/14 set aside. He also sought a reconsideration of the Medical Appeal Panel’s (MAP) Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) dated 26 June 2015.

  2. The application for reconsideration was allocated to Senior Arbitrator Capel, who issued a direction to the parties to file written submissions, following which he determined the matter on the papers before him. The Senior Arbitrator declined to reconsider the orders made in the COD dated 3 August 2015 and confirmed the COD.

  3. The appellant appeals the Senior Arbitrator’s decision.

BACKGROUND

  1. The appellant was employed by Dell Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent) as a hardware product specialist. During the course of his employment, the appellant suffered a psychological injury, which was deemed to have occurred on 1 August 2013.

  2. In 2014, the appellant commenced proceedings in the Commission (matter no 2703/14) seeking weekly payments, treatment expenses and a lump sum pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). That matter proceeded to arbitration and the appellant was awarded weekly payments and treatment expenses. The s 66 claim was referred to an Approved Medical Specialist (AMS), Professor Nick Glozier, who issued a MAC certifying the appellant’s whole person impairment (WPI) to be 15%. The respondent appealed to the MAP. The MAP found error in Professor Glozier’s assessment and revoked his MAC. The MAP issued a new MAC dated 26 June 2015 certifying the appellant’s WPI to be 7%. The appellant did not seek judicial review of the MAC dated 26 June 2015.

  3. Section 65A(3) of the 1987 Act provides that in order to receive lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 in…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Parsons v Dell Australia 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
[2020] NSWWCCPD 2
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Parsons, the appellant, brought an appeal against the respondent, Dell Australia Pty Ltd, in relation to a dispute over a Certificate of Determination issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The appeal was lodged with the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The core of the dispute was the validity and correctness of the Certificate of Determination, which was issued by the respondent in relation to Parsons' claim for workers' compensation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondent exercised its discretion correctly in considering the Certificate of Determination, and whether any errors were made in the decision-making process. The appellant argued that the respondent had made an error in exercising its discretion, citing various statutory provisions and precedent cases. The court was tasked with examining the exercise of discretion under Section 350(3) of the Act and determining if there was an error that warranted reconsideration of the Certificate.

The court meticulously reviewed the factors that should be considered when exercising discretion under Section 350(3), as outlined in Samuel v Sebel Furniture Ltd. The court also considered whether the respondent's decision constituted an error in discretion, as discussed in Raulston v Toll Pty Ltd. After thorough analysis, the court found that the respondent had not made any errors in its exercise of discretion. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Certificate of Determination dated 14 June 2019. The appellant's application to adduce further evidence on appeal was also refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant’s application made pursuant to s 352(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 to adduce further evidence on appeal is refused.

2. The Certificate of Determination dated 14 June 2019 is confirmed.

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.