Peel v Ferry Fencing Group Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 393

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Peel v Ferry Fencing Group Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 393
APPLICANT:	Ben Peel
RESPONDENT:	Ferry Fencing Group Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Adam Halstead
DATE OF DECISION:	11 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation and expenses for medical treatment; sections 33 and 60; applicant worker’s left knee injured in 2012; records for medical treatment to September 2013; worker claims incapacity due to the injury from July 2024 and further medical treatment; respondent employer contends some undisclosed intervening event caused current incapacity and related need for medical treatment; Held – effects and symptoms of 2012 injury persisted throughout entire period; self-management of symptoms by the worker; ultimately incapacitated for work from July 2024 due to the 2012 injury; respondent to pay weekly compensation and treatment expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. It is undisputed the applicant received an injury to his left knee on 13 April 2012 in the course of employment with the respondent 2. The applicant has been incapacitated for work due to the 13 April 2012 left knee injury since 1 July 2024. 3. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) from 1 July 2024. 4. A general order is made pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act for the respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably incurred medical and related treatment expenses for his left knee injury. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

While at work on 13 April 2012, the applicant, Ben Peel, received an injury to his left knee, following the accidental discharge of a nail gun. The respondent, Ferry Fencing Group Pty Ltd, accepted liability for the injury at that time for workers compensation purposes and the applicant received treatment. The applicant claims the injury has prevented him from working since 1 July 2024 and requires further medical treatment. He seeks payment of weekly compensation and expenses for treatment. The claim is disputed by the respondent.
The applicant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) at the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 2 April 2025 to initiate these proceedings.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

Following a preliminary conference on 14 May 2025, when procedural directions were made, the matter came before the Commission for arbitration hearing on 26 June 2025. Mr Loukas of counsel, instructed by Mr Afghan of Sher Legal, appeared for the applicant, who was also present. The respondent was represented by Mr Hanrahan of counsel, instructed by Mr Glavinceski of Hicksons Lawyers, and a delegate of its insurer was present.
I am satisfied the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I endeavoured to bring the parties to the dispute to an acceptable settlement. The parties had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement.…

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 Peel v Ferry Fencing Group 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: [2025] NSWPIC 393
Decision Date: 11 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Peel v Ferry Fencing Group Pty Ltd, the applicant, Mr Peel, sought compensation from his employer for ongoing incapacity and medical treatment expenses stemming from a knee injury he sustained in 2012 while working for Ferry Fencing Group Pty Ltd. The case was heard and determined in the Workers Compensation Court of New South Wales. Mr Peel contended that his incapacity for work and the need for further medical treatment were a direct consequence of the 2012 injury. Conversely, the respondent employer argued that an undisclosed intervening event was the true cause of Mr Peel’s current incapacity and requirement for medical treatment.

The court was required to decide whether the incapacity and medical expenses claimed by Mr Peel were indeed a result of the 2012 injury, or whether some other factor was responsible. The court examined the medical evidence and records, including those detailing Mr Peel's treatment from the injury in 2012 up until September 2013, and assessed the symptoms and their persistence over time. Additionally, it was necessary to determine if there was an intervening event that could be attributed to Mr Peel's incapacity from July 2024 onwards.

The court found that the symptoms and effects of the 2012 knee injury had persisted throughout the entire period, despite Mr Peel's self-management of those symptoms. The court was satisfied that Mr Peel had been incapacitated for work from July 2024 as a direct result of the 2012 injury. Therefore, the court held that the respondent employer was liable for the payment of weekly compensation and treatment expenses to Mr Peel, as per the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders