Retail Ready Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Booth - [2025] NSWPICPD 10

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Retail Ready Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Booth [2025] NSWPICPD 10
APPELLANT:	Retail Ready Operations Australia Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Rosella Dawn Booth
INSURER:	Coles Group Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W7589/23
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	11 February 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. If necessary, leave to appeal the Member’s order remitting the respondent’s claim for whole person impairment pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor is granted. 2. The Member’s amended Certificate of Determination dated 4 March 2024 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Perception of events – Attorney General’s Department v K [2010] NSWWCCPD 76 applied – requirement for medical evidence in determining the main contributing factor to the injury – Hamad v Q Catering Limited [2017] NSWWCCPD 6 applied – burden of proof Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes [2008] NSWCA 246 discussed – whether reasoning illogical – Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16 discussed – arbitration is not a dress rehearsal Dick’s Diesel Pty Ltd v Caddaye [2015] NSWWCCPD 68; Super Retail Group Services Pty Ltd v Uelese [2016] NSWWCCPD 4 cited
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr L Robison, counsel
Hall & Wilcox Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr P Stockley, counsel
Turner Freeman Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Booth v Retail Ready Operations Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 103
MEMBER:	Mr J Isaksen
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	4 March 2024

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Ms Rosella Dawn Booth (the respondent) was employed by Retail Ready Operations Australia Pty Ltd (the appellant) as a process worker. The respondent alleged that from 2017, she was subjected to bullying, harassment, discrimination, false accusations, racial discrimination, lack of support, isolation and constant criticism, which caused her to suffer a psychological injury in the form of an acute paranoid psychosis. The claim for compensation was denied by the appellant on the basis that the respondent did not suffer a work-related injury pursuant to s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) because the events in the workplace that were said to be causative were not “real events.” In the alternative, the appellant asserted that if the respondent did suffer an injury, then it was not compensable because the injury predominantly resulted from reasonable action taken by the appellant with respect to discipline and/or the respondent’s dismissal from employment pursuant to s 11A(1) of the 1987 Act. The appellant also challenged the respondent’s entitlement to weekly compensation.
The dispute proceeded to arbitration before a Member of the Personal Injury Commission (the Commission). The Member issued a Certificate of Determination dated 4 March 2024 (which he subsequently amended), in which he determined that the respondent suffered a psychological injury in the course of her employment in the form of a disease injury pursuant to s 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act with a deemed date of injury of 17…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Retail Ready Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Booth and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NSWPICPD 10
Decision Date: 11 February 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Retail Ready Operations Australia Pty Ltd, trading as Retail Ready, sought a review of a workers compensation decision made by the NSW Workers Compensation Commission. The dispute involved an injury sustained by Mr. Booth, an employee of Retail Ready, who claimed the injury was caused by an incident at work. Retail Ready contested the claim, arguing that the injury was not work-related. The case was heard in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issues revolved around whether the injury Mr. Booth sustained was caused by a work-related incident and if the Commission had applied the correct legal principles in making its decision. The tribunal had to consider the nature of the injury, the circumstances surrounding it, and the evidence presented regarding its causation. Additionally, the tribunal needed to assess whether the Commission's reasoning was logical and whether it had properly applied the relevant legal standards.

The tribunal found that the Commission had correctly identified the key issue as the causation of the injury and applied the appropriate legal principles. It noted that the Commission had required medical evidence to determine the main contributing factor to the injury, consistent with the precedent set in Hamad v Q Catering Limited. The tribunal also considered that the burden of proof was properly applied, in line with the discussion in Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes. The reasoning of the Commission was deemed logical, and the tribunal found no error in the Commission's decision-making process.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed the application for review, upholding the original workers compensation decision made by the Commission. The tribunal found that the Commission had correctly applied the relevant legal principles and that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr. Booth's injury was not caused by a work-related incident.

Orders