Rees v BOC Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 415

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Rees v BOC Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 415
APPLICANT:	Jason Rees
RESPONDENT:	BOC Limited
SENIOR MEMBER:	Elizabeth Beilby
DATE OF DECISION:	1 August 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Applicant was employed by the respondent in their gas and bottling factory; allegation made that he was bullied and harassed over the course of his lengthy employment; he also sustained physical injuries in the course of his employment; claim for whole person impairment for a primary psychological injury; factual allegations disputed by the respondent; Attorney General v K applied; applicant’s perception was based upon real events in the workplace; respondent provided no medical support for any alternative argument on causation; Held – finding in favour of the applicant.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant sustained a primary psychological injury whilst employed by the respondent. 2. The matter is remitted to the President to be referred to a Medical Assessor for whole person impairment of the applicant’s injury. The date of injury is 20 March 2018. 3. The following documents are to be provided to the Medical Assessor: (a) Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; (b) Reply to the Application to Resolve a Dispute; (c) Application to Admit Late Documents dated 12 April 2024; (d) Application to Admit Late Documents dated 7 May 2024, and (e) Application to Admit Late Documents dated 14 June 2024.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Jason Rees (the applicant) was employed by BOC Limited (the respondent) at their gas and bottling factory in Wetherill Park Sydney. He claims that he was subject to bullying and harassment throughout the period of his employment which started in 2003 and ceased in 2018.
It should be observed that Mr Rees also sustained physical injuries whilst employed with the respondent to his back and right shoulder. These injuries are not the subject of the present dispute.
By way of demand dated 13 October 2022[1] the applicant seeks lump sum compensation for his primary psychological injury based upon the assessment of Dr Canaris dated
[1] Application page 18.
11 February 2022 (20% whole person impairment).
The respondent issued a s78 Notice on 12 April 2023 denying liability.[2] The dispute notice outlined the denial on the basis on a factual basis saying that the psychological injury was not the result of bullying and harassment and also that any psychological injury should be described as a secondary psychological injury.
[2] Application page 20.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

It was not in dispute that the applicant suffered a psychological injury whilst employed with the respondent.
The parties agrees that the issue in dispute was whether the applicant’s psychological illness was caused as alleged, that is by bullying and harassment in the workplace.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I have used my best endeavours in attempting to bring the parties to…

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 Rees v BOC Ltd

Details

AGLC: Rees v BOC Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 415
Case: [2024] NSWPIC 415
Decision Date: 1 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rees brought a claim against BOC Ltd for a whole person impairment for a primary psychological injury, stemming from his employment at their gas and bottling factory. He alleged a sustained period of bullying and harassment, along with physical injuries, all of which were contested by BOC Ltd. The case was heard and determined in the relevant workers' compensation court. The central legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether Rees's psychological injury could be classified as a primary injury under workers' compensation law and whether the injuries were caused by the events at work as alleged.

The court examined the case through the lens of Attorney General v K, focusing on whether the psychological injury arose out of Rees's employment and whether the applicant's perception of the events was based on real occurrences in the workplace. BOC Ltd failed to provide any medical evidence to challenge the causation of the injuries, which further supported Rees's claims. The court found that Rees's psychological injury was indeed a primary injury, directly attributable to the workplace bullying and harassment he experienced. Consequently, the court ruled in Rees's favour, affirming his entitlement to compensation for the primary psychological injury sustained during his employment.

The court's decision was grounded in the factual basis of Rees's allegations, which were substantiated by his experiences at the workplace, and the absence of any countervailing medical evidence from BOC Ltd. The final orders of the court will detail the compensation to be paid to Rees for his primary psychological injury, reflecting the findings of the court.

Orders