Rees v Catholic Education Office Act - [2025] NSWPIC 445

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Rees v Catholic Education Office ACT [2025] NSWPIC 445
APPLICANT:	Evan Rees
RESPONDENT:	Catholic Education Office ACT
MEMBER:	Jane Peacock
DATE OF DECISION:	29 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; psychological injury; injury undisputed; section 11A defence; applicant submitted that the section 11A was not invoked because of an earlier injury and the principles in State Government insurance Commission v Oakley apply; Held – on the evidence that section 11A was invoked; respondent bears the onus of proving its section 11A defence; evidence weighed in the balance; not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had not discharged its onus of proof that the action taken in relation to discipline was reasonable; applicant not precluded from the recovery of compensation for his psychological injury by reason of the provisions of section 11A; award for the applicant.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent pay the applicant weekly compensation, on the basis of pre-injury average weekly earnings of $2,320 (subject to indexation), at the rate of $1,856 (subject to indexation) from 15 July 2022 to date and continuing, pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The respondent pay the applicant’s s 60 expenses on production of accounts and/or receipts. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

By Application to Resolve a Dispute (Application), Mr Evan Rees (the applicant), as amended, seeks weekly compensation and compensation for medical expenses as a result of psychological injury in the course of or arising out of his employment as a school teacher.
The respondent is Catholic Education Office ACT (the respondent). The respondent was self-insured at the relevant time for the purposes of workers compensation by Catholic Church Insurances Limited (the insurer).
The respondent denied liability for the claim.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

There is no dispute that the applicant has a psychological injury suffered in the course of or arising out of his employment with the respondent as a teacher.
There is no dispute that the applicant had a prior psychological injury which resulted him going off work in 2018 for which he was paid weekly compensation and compensation for medical expenses.
He was able to return to pre-injury duties at the end of 2018 but remained on anti-depressant medication.
Otherwise matters of agreement were recorded at the conciliation/arbitration as follows:
(a) pre-injury average weekly earnings (PIAWE) is agreed at $2,320;
(b) it is agreed that the applicant has no current capacity for employment for all periods of the claim;
(c) psychological injury on 28 October 2021 is not in dispute but the respondent maintains a dispute under s 11A in relation to discipline;
(d) the applicant’s primary case is that he suffers from an accepted injury in 2018 and that s 11A does not arise in respect of the 28 October 2021 incident to preclude the applicant from the recovery of compensation because the applicant…

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 Catholic Education Office Act

Details

AGLC: Rees v Catholic Education Office Act [2025] NSWPIC 445
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 445
Decision Date: 29 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Rees v Catholic Education Office, the applicant sought compensation for a psychological injury sustained while employed by the respondent. The dispute reached the court to determine whether the respondent's actions were protected under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court had to decide if the respondent successfully invoked section 11A, which provides a defence if the injury was caused by an act taken in good faith in the course of disciplining the employee.

The primary legal issue was whether the respondent had discharged the onus of proving that its actions regarding the disciplinary measures were reasonable, thus invoking section 11A. The applicant argued that the respondent had not demonstrated the reasonableness of its disciplinary actions and that the principles from State Government Insurance Commission v Oakley should apply. The court had to weigh the evidence and determine if the applicant's psychological injury was due to the disciplinary actions taken by the respondent.

The court found that the respondent had invoked section 11A but failed to meet the onus of proving that its disciplinary actions were reasonable. The evidence presented was not sufficient to satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities, that the respondent had discharged its burden of proof. Consequently, the applicant was not precluded from recovering compensation for the psychological injury. The court awarded compensation to the applicant, affirming that the respondent had not successfully invoked section 11A as a defence.

Orders