Phua v Charles Sturt University - [2024] NSWPIC 2

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Phua v Charles Sturt University [2024] NSWPIC 2
APPLICANT:	Chiu Wooi Phua
RESPONDENT:	Charles Sturt University
MEMBER:	John Isaksen
DATE OF DECISION:	8 January 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly payments of compensation as a result of a psychological injury; respondent relies upon section 11A defence that injury was predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken with respect to performance appraisal; reference to Hamad v Q Catering and Irwin v Director General of School Education; dispute as to the extent of the worker’s incapacity; reference to Wollongong Nursing Home v Dewar and Husnain P/L v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer & Anor; Held – the respondent has failed to establish a defence pursuant to section 11A because the injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by action taken by employer with respect to performance appraisal and the action taken by the respondent was not reasonable; worker had no current work capacity for about 2 months following his cessation of work with the respondent and the worker has had a partial incapacity thereafter; award of weekly payments of compensation for periods of total and partial incapacity.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent has failed to establish a defence pursuant to s 11A (1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). 2. The deemed date of injury is 23 June 2022. 3. The applicant had no current work capacity from 23 June 2022 to 17 August 2022. 4. The applicant has had a partial incapacity for work since 18 August 2022. The Commission orders: 5. The respondent is to pay to the applicant $1,738.80 per week from 23 June 2022 to 17 August 2022 pursuant to s 36 (1) of the 1987 Act. 6. The respondent is to pay to the applicant $1,428.30 per week from 18 August 2022 to 22 September 2022 pursuant to s 36 (2) of the 1987 Act. 7. The respondent is to pay weekly payments of compensation to the applicant pursuant to s 37 (3) of the 1987 Act as follows: (a) $1,153.70 per week from 23 September 2022 to 30 September 2022; (b) $1,203 per week from 1 October 2022 to 31 March 2023; (c) $1,265.50 per week from 1 April 2023 to 30 June 2023; (d) $1,252 per week from 1 July 2023 to 30 September 2023, and (e) $1,289.40 per week from 1 October 2023 to date and continuing. 8. The respondent is to have credit for any sick leave paid to the applicant pursuant to s 50 of the 1987 Act for the period during which weekly payments of compensation are to be paid.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Chiu Wooi Phua, the applicant in these proceedings, claims that he sustained a psychological injury in the course of his employment as a lecturer with the respondent, Charles Sturt University, as a result of experiencing bullying and undue pressure by his managers.

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 Phua v Charles Sturt University 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 2
Decision Date: 8 January 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Phua v Charles Sturt University involved a claim for weekly payments of compensation due to a psychological injury sustained by the plaintiff. The respondent, Charles Sturt University, argued that the plaintiff's injury was predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken with respect to a performance appraisal, citing section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The dispute reached the court over whether the university's actions were reasonable and whether they predominantly caused the psychological injury.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine if the university's actions were reasonable and if these actions predominantly caused the plaintiff's psychological injury. The court examined whether the university had acted reasonably in conducting the performance appraisal and whether this appraisal predominantly caused the injury. References to previous cases such as Hamad v Q Catering and Irwin v Director General of School Education were made to guide the court's interpretation of the term 'reasonable' in this context. The court also considered the extent of the plaintiff's incapacity following the injury, referencing Wollongong Nursing Home v Dewar and Husnain P/L v Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer & Anor.

The court found that the university had not established a defence under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. It determined that the psychological injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by the university's actions during the performance appraisal, and those actions were not reasonable. The plaintiff had no work capacity for approximately two months following the cessation of work with the university and experienced partial incapacity thereafter. Consequently, the court awarded weekly payments of compensation for the periods of total and partial incapacity.

The final orders of the court were to grant the plaintiff weekly payments of compensation for the periods of total and partial incapacity, rejecting the university's defence under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court's decision underscored the importance of reasonable employer actions in the context of performance appraisals and their potential impact on workers' compensation claims.

Orders