Reid v ANZ Banking Group Ltd - [2014] NSWWCCPD 65

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:	Reid v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2014] NSWWCCPD 65
APPELLANT:	Julie Reid
RESPONDENT:	ANZ Banking Group Ltd
INSURER:	Self-insured
FILE NUMBER:	A1-843/13
ARBITRATOR:	Mr R Stanton
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:	20 June 2014
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	9 October 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:	Incapacity; entitlement to weekly compensation; weight of evidence; onus of proof
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	President Judge Keating
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:	Turner Freeman Lawyers
Respondent:	Sparke Helmore Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Arbitrator’s determination of 20 June 2014 is confirmed. 2. No order as to costs.

INTRODUCTION

The appellant worker suffered a personal injury in the form of an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, together with an aggravation to her pre-existing irritable bowel syndrome, as a result of stress at work with the respondent employer. The Arbitrator found that the worker was incapacitated for work from 27 April 2012 until 31 July 2012 and ordered that she be paid weekly compensation for that period.
The issue on appeal concerns the worker’s entitlement to weekly compensation beyond 31 July 2012, in circumstances where the Arbitrator was not persuaded that, beyond that date, the worker was unable to earn her pre-injury average weekly earnings.

BACKGROUND

Julie Reid, the appellant, worked for ANZ Banking Group Ltd (ANZ), the respondent, from 23 November 1994 until 26 July 2012, when her employment was terminated. Ms Reid was employed as a team senior, a permanent part-time position, initially working four days per week and then three days per week. Her duties required her to process superannuation contributions and assist the assistant managers with enquiries with business units and within the teams.
Ms Reid alleged that as a result of harassment by her superiors from January 2012 to April 2012 she suffered a psychological injury. She made a claim for weekly compensation and medical expenses on 30 May 2012.
On 26 June 2012, ANZ issued a notice pursuant to s 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) advising that liability for the payment of weekly compensation and medical expenses was declined, amongst other reasons, on the basis that she had not been incapacitated for work (s 33 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987).
On 17 December 2012, Ms Reid lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) in the Commission. She sought an order for weekly compensation from 27 April 2012 to date and continuing. The alleged injury was pleaded as a psychological injury which occurred as a result of the nature and conditions of her employment from January 2012 to April 2012.
On 4 February 2013, the respondent filed a Reply to the Application. It confirmed the issues in dispute were those stated in the s 74 notice.
On 2 June 2014, a conciliation/arbitration hearing was listed before a Commission Arbitrator, following which the Arbitrator reserved his decision.
On 20 June 2014, the Arbitrator…

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 Reid v ANZ Banking Group Ltd

Details

AGLC: Reid v ANZ Banking Group Ltd [2014] NSWWCCPD 65
Case: [2014] NSWWCCPD 65
Decision Date: 9 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Reid v ANZ Banking Group Ltd, the parties involved were the applicant, Reid, and the respondent, ANZ Banking Group Ltd. The dispute at hand revolved around Reid's entitlement to weekly compensation under the applicable legislation. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The central issue that the court had to decide was whether Reid was incapacitated to such an extent that he was unable to gain employment, which would entitle him to weekly compensation. This required the court to evaluate the weight of the evidence presented by both parties and determine the appropriate onus of proof.

The court addressed the legal issues by examining the relevant legislation and the evidence submitted by both parties. It was crucial for the court to ascertain whether Reid's incapacity was indeed a barrier to him gaining employment, as this would be the determining factor for his entitlement to weekly compensation. The court carefully weighed the evidence provided by both parties and assessed the credibility of the witnesses. Ultimately, the court found that the evidence presented by Reid was sufficient to establish his incapacity and inability to gain employment. This finding led to the confirmation of the Arbitrator’s determination dated 20 June 2014.

Following its analysis of the evidence and applicable legislation, the court concluded that Reid was entitled to weekly compensation. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia confirmed the Arbitrator’s determination and upheld Reid's entitlement to the compensation. The court did not make any order regarding the costs associated with the case. The decision provided clarity on the matter of incapacity and entitlement to weekly compensation, as well as the weight of evidence and onus of proof required in such cases.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Arbitrator’s determination of 20 June 2014 is confirmed.

2. No order as to costs.

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.