Qannadian v Bartter Enterprises Pty Limited

The matter of Qannadian v Bartter Enterprises Pty Limited involved a dispute concerning the use of clinical notes in fact finding, procedural fairness, the rejection of uncontroverted evidence, and the weight of evidence in relation to a claim for a primary psychological injury under section 65A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The proceedings were heard in the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where the applicant sought a review of a decision made by an Arbitrator. The Arbitrator had previously determined that the applicant was not entitled to compensation for the alleged psychological injury.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the Arbitrator had applied the correct legal principles in relation to the use of clinical notes in fact finding, procedural fairness, and the rejection of uncontroverted evidence. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine the appropriate weight to be given to the evidence presented and whether there was a two-stage test applicable in determining primary psychological injury under section 65A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

In addressing these issues, the Tribunal considered relevant authorities such as Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227, Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 11, and the rule in Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67. The Tribunal found that the Arbitrator had correctly applied the relevant legal principles in assessing the evidence and determining the applicant's entitlement to compensation. The Tribunal held that the Arbitrator had not erred in rejecting the uncontroverted evidence and had appropriately considered the weight of the evidence. Furthermore, the Tribunal concluded that there was no two-stage test applicable in determining primary psychological injury under section 65A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

As a result of the Tribunal's decision, the Arbitrator's determination dated 26 May 2016 was confirmed, and the applicant's claim for compensation was dismissed. The Tribunal found that the Arbitrator had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and that the evidence did not support a finding that the applicant was entitled to compensation for the alleged psychological injury.