Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Pioneer Studios Pty Ltd v Hills [2012] NSWCA 324 Hearing dates: 26 September 2012 Decision date: 26 September 2012 Before: Allsop P at [1], [49]
Basten JA at [35]
Hoeben JA at [48]Decision: (1) Appeal allowed;
(2) Set aside the decision of the Workers Compensation Commission made on 1 June 2011;
(3) Remit the matter to the Workers Compensation Commission for consideration according to law;
(4) Respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: WORKERS' COMPENSATION - entitlement to compensation - worker injured at party held on work premises - party held to farewell work colleague and to celebrate birthdays of persons having no connection to employer - employer provided no food, drink, entertainment or security for party - worker attended party to meet clients, make a good impression and join in with work team - whether sufficient connection between injury and employment Legislation Cited: Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 4, 9, 9A
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2010 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 352, 353Cases Cited: Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 324; 75 NSWLR 503
Haider v JP Morgan Holdings Aust Ltd [2007] NSWCA 158; 4 DDCR 634
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd [1992] HCA 21; 173 CLR 473
Henderson v Commissioner of Railways (WA) [1937] HCA 67; 58 CLR 281
Hook v Rolfe (1986) 7 NSWLR 40
Mercer v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2000] NSWCA 138; 48 NSWLR 740
Roncevich v Repatriation Commission [2005] HCA 40; 222 CLR 115
Sapina v Coles Myer Ltd [2009] NSWCA 71
Smith v Australian Woollen Mills Ltd [1933] HCA 60; 50 CLR 504
Tarry v Warringah Shire Council [1974] WCR 1
Telstra Corporation Ltd v Bowden [2012] FCA 576
Zinc Corporation Ltd v Scarce (1995) 12 NSWCCR 566Category: Principal judgment Parties: Pioneer Studios Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Kathryn Hills (Respondent)Representation: L King SC (Appellant)
B J Gross QC and S B Dixon (Respondent)
Bartier Perry (Appellant)
Carroll & O'Dea (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2011/208280 Decision under appeal
- Citation:
- [2011] NSWWCCPD 30
- Date of Decision:
- 2011-06-01 00:00:00
- Before:
- Roche DP
- File Number(s):
- 6838-2010
Judgment
ALLSOP P: On or about 2.00 am on 14 March 2004, Ms Kathryn Hills fell over a balustrade at the premises of her employer, Pioneer Studios Pty Ltd ("Pioneer") and suffered serious head and brain injuries. She was attending a social function that had commenced the previous evening. The contest before the Workers Compensation Commission was whether her injuries…
Continue reading Pioneer Studios Pty Ltd v Hills
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Pioneer Studios Pty Ltd v Hills [2012] NSWCA 324
- Case
- [2012] NSWCA 324
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether there was a sufficient connection between the worker's injury and their employment to establish an entitlement to compensation under the relevant workers' compensation legislation. This required the court to consider the circumstances under which an injury sustained at a social event held on work premises could be considered to have arisen out of or in the course of employment.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that the Workers Compensation Commission had erred in its original determination. The court applied principles that require a close examination of the nexus between the employment and the injury. While the party was held on work premises, the nature of the event, its purpose, and the employer's level of involvement were critical factors. The court found that the Commission had not adequately considered these factors in determining whether the injury arose out of or in the course of employment.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Workers Compensation Commission, and remitted the matter back to the Commission for reconsideration according to law. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal allowed;
(2) Set aside the decision of the Workers Compensation Commission made on 1 June 2011;
(3) Remit the matter to the Workers Compensation Commission for consideration according to law;
(4) Respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.