Preece v Chemcorp Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 95

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Preece v Chemcorp Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 95
APPLICANT:	Jacqueline Preece
RESPONDENT:	Chemcorp Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	29 February 2024
DATE OF AMENDMENT:	8 March 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly compensation and treatment expenses in respect of psychological injury; whether defence pursuant to section 11A(1) made out; multiple workplace events causative of injury; whether events constituted reasonable action with respect to discipline; extent of incapacity; Held – the respondent failed to discharge its onus of establishing that injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action with respect to discipline; applicant had no current work capacity as a result of injury; awards for the applicant for weekly benefits and treatment expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent has failed to discharge its onus of establishing on the balance of probabilities that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the employer with respect to discipline or any of the other categories of action in s 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The applicant has, at all relevant times, had no current work capacity. The Commission orders: 1. The respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 based on a pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) rate of $1,300, as periodically indexed, from 27 June 2023 to date and continuing. 2. The respondent to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical and related treatment expenses in accordance with s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 upon production of accounts, receipts and/or Medicare Notice of Charge.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Ms Jacqueline Preece (the applicant) was employed as a sales coordinator by Chemcorp Pty Ltd (the respondent). The applicant claims to have sustained a psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent.
Liability to pay compensation in respect of the injury was disputed in a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 1 June 2023. The decision to dispute liability was maintained following internal review on 25 September 2023.
The present proceedings were commenced by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 6 October 2023.
The applicant seeks weekly compensation from 27 June 2023 to date and continuing and medical and related treatment expenses pursuant to s 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

The parties appeared for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing on 15 January 2024. The applicant was represented by Mr Ty Hickey of counsel. The respondent was represented by Mr Daniel Stiles of counsel.
Agreement was reached during the conciliation conference that the applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) rate was $1,386.80. Subsequently, the parties informed me that the agreed rate was…

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.

Continue reading Preece v Chemcorp Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Preece v Chemcorp Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 95
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 95
Decision Date: 29 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Preece v Chemcorp Pty Ltd dealt with a claim for workers' compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The applicant, Preece, sought weekly compensation and treatment expenses in relation to a psychological injury sustained during their employment. The respondent, Chemcorp Pty Ltd, contested the claim, arguing that the injury was predominantly caused by reasonable disciplinary actions taken by the employer. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court, which was tasked with determining the validity of the respondent's defence under section 11A(1) of the Act.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the injury claimed by Preece was wholly or predominantly due to reasonable disciplinary actions and whether these actions constituted reasonable measures with respect to discipline. Additionally, the court had to assess the extent of Preece's incapacity due to the injury. The court's role was to carefully evaluate the evidence and apply the statutory provisions to determine if the respondent had successfully discharged its burden of proving the defence.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that the respondent had not met its onus of establishing that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable disciplinary action. The court also determined that Preece had no current work capacity as a direct result of the psychological injury sustained. Given these findings, the court ruled in favour of Preece, awarding weekly benefits and treatment expenses. This decision underscores the importance of substantiating claims of disciplinary causation and the impact on an employee's capacity to work.

Orders