Sami v Victory Lodge Pty Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Sami v Victory Lodge Pty Limited [2020] NSWWCCPD 34
APPELLANT: Yankat Sami
RESPONDENT: Victory Lodge Pty Limited
INSURER: Racing NSW
FILE NUMBER: A1-3039/19
ARBITRATOR: Mr J Wynyard
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 24 October 2019
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 3 June 2020
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Injury; s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; findings of fact based on the evidence; s 9B of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; drawing of inferences; adequacy of reasons
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Geoffrey Parker SC
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant:
Mr S Moffett, counsel
Walker Law Group
Respondent:
Mr P Macken, solicitor
Leigh Virtue & Associates
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.    The name of the respondent, wherever it appears, is amended to read ‘Victory Lodge Pty Limited’.

2.    The Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 24 October 2019 is confirmed.

INTRODUCTION

  1. On 11 March 2015, Mr Sami (the appellant) suffered a heart attack whilst working at the premises of the respondent employer Victory Lodge Pty Limited. There is some confusion as to whether the heart attack occurred on 13 March 2015 (as the Arbitrator notes in his Award) or on 11 March 2015. The precise date is of no significance.

  2. Mr Sami brought proceedings for lump sum compensation against Victory Lodge Pty Limited, the name of the respondent having been amended by the Arbitrator by consent.[1] I note that respondent is named in the Application – Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator as ‘Racing NSW (Victory Lodge Pty Ltd)’. On 20 March 2020, the appellant made an application to amend the name of the respondent to ‘Victory Lodge Pty Limited’ by consent. The name of the respondent, wherever it appears, is amended to read ‘Victory Lodge Pty Limited’.

    [1] Transcript of arbitration, 25 September 2019, 2.10.

  3. On 21 October 2019, an Arbitrator of the Commission rejected Mr Sami’s claim and entered an award for the respondent.

  4. This appeal is from that determination.

BACKGROUND FACTS

  1. Mr Sami commenced working as a stable hand at Victory Lodge from an unspecified date in 2010.

  2. There is no dispute that the appellant suffered a myocardial infarction.

  3. At the commencement of his oral reasons, the Arbitrator summarised the circumstances of the appellant’s injury.[2] He quoted from the appellant’s statement dated 1 June 2018:

    “I was carrying water. It was heavy and I started getting pain in the chest and the legs started giving way and then I fell onto my back and I lost consciousness. The next thing I woke up I was in Liverpool Hospital. I was then told I had a heart attack.”[3]

    [2] Transcript of oral reasons, 21 October 2019 (T) 1.27­–40.

    [3] Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 1.

  4. In a second statement dated 8 June 2019, Mr Sami described his work in the following terms:

    “I gained employment at Victory Lodge as a full-time stable hand in 2010 and my daily work was very demanding.…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sami v Victory Lodge Pty Limited 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
[2020] NSWWCCPD 34
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sami brought an appeal against a decision of the Workers Compensation Arbitrator concerning his entitlement to workers compensation. Sami claimed he sustained an injury in the course of employment while working as a chef for Victory Lodge Pty Limited. The Arbitrator found that Sami’s injury did not arise out of, or in the course of, his employment with Victory Lodge Pty Limited and dismissed his claim. Sami appealed the decision, contending that the Arbitrator erred in their findings of fact, the drawing of inferences and the adequacy of reasons given.

The central issue before the court was whether the Arbitrator erred in their findings of fact, the drawing of inferences and the adequacy of reasons given. Sami argued that the Arbitrator failed to properly consider the evidence presented, particularly in relation to the nature and cause of his injury. Victory Lodge Pty Limited contended that the Arbitrator’s findings were correct and adequately reasoned. The court was required to determine whether the Arbitrator’s findings were supported by the evidence and whether they were legally sound.

The court found that the Arbitrator’s findings of fact were based on the evidence presented and that the drawing of inferences was reasonable. The court held that the Arbitrator’s decision was not flawed and that the reasons provided were adequate. The court found that the Arbitrator properly considered the evidence and made findings based on that evidence. The court also held that the Arbitrator’s decision was not affected by any errors in the drawing of inferences. As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination was confirmed.

The final orders of the court were to amend the name of the respondent to ‘Victory Lodge Pty Limited’ and to confirm the Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 24 October 2019. The court found that the Arbitrator’s decision was legally sound and that the appeal was without merit. The decision serves as a reminder that findings of fact and the drawing of inferences are matters for the decision-maker and will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The name of the respondent, wherever it appears, is amended to read ‘Victory Lodge Pty Limited’.

2. The Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 24 October 2019 is confirmed.

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.