Legal Research
Cases
SB v XFPL

SB v XFPL

Case [2022] NSWPICPD 7 1 March 2022

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	SB v XFPL [2022] NSWPICPD 7
FIRST APPELLANT:	SB
SECOND APPELLANT:	JB
THIRD APPELLANT:	LA
FOURTH APPELLANT:	RB
RESPONDENT:	XFPL
INSURER:	AAI Limited trading as GIO
FILE NUMBER:	A1-5199/20
A2-5199/20
A3-5199/20
A4-5199/20
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Michael Snell
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	1 March 2022
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. The Certificate of Determination dated 14 May 2021 is revoked. 2. There is a finding that MMB (the deceased) suffered injury on 7 March 2016, arising out of his employment with the respondent, that resulted in his death. 3. The matter is remitted to a different Member for determination of those issues that remain, consistent with these reasons. Those issues involve the satisfaction of s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, interest, apportionment between the dependants and the entitlement of any of the dependants to weekly payments pursuant to s 25(1)(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – injury arising out of employment
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	First Appellant:
Mr Andrew Parker, counsel
Carroll & O’Dea Lawyers
Second Appellant:
Mr W Loukas, counsel
Lionheart Lawyers
Third Appellant:
Mr B McManamey, counsel
Turner Freeman Lawyers
Fourth Appellant:
Mr D Adhikary, counsel
Acorn Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr F Doak, counsel HWL Ebsworth Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL
MEMBER:	Mr N Read
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	14 May 2021

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

These proceedings are brought pursuant to ss 25 and 26 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) in respect of the death on 7 March 2016 of MMB (the deceased). SB, JB and RB (the first, second and fourth appellants respectively) are children of the deceased. LA (the third appellant) is the widow of the deceased. The deceased was employed by XFPL (the respondent) as a sales representative and business development manager. MKB (the deceased’s brother) was the “owner/director” of the respondent, together with other associated companies.[1]
[1] Statement of MKB 12/4/16 (MKB statement), [16], [19], [26] and [29], Application in Respect of Death of Worker (ARD), p 98.
The respondent contracted with ISPL to supply “signage and restorations” to a service station site in country New South Wales that was owned by the respondent. There were delays in the completion of this work which led to friction between the respondent and ISPL. The deceased had dealings with CS, the “manager and owner” of ISPL, relating to these delays.[2] MKB stated that the quotation for the work was provided by ISPL on 1 September 2015 and that the deceased was regularly contacting CS and her staff from the beginning of 2016 chasing up completion.[3]
[2] AALD 25/2/21, p 178.
[3] MKB statement, [32], [35], ARD, p 99.
MKB stated that on Friday 4 March 2016 Mr WT, who was employed by ISPL as a project manager, hung up during a telephone call from the deceased, who was chasing up the…

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 SB v XFPL

Details

AGLC: SB v XFPL [2022] NSWPICPD 7
Case: [2022] NSWPICPD 7
Decision Date: 1 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of SB v XFPL, the parties engaged in a legal dispute concerning the eligibility for workers' compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The claimant, SB, sought compensation for injuries sustained during the course of their employment. The respondent, XFPL, contested the claim, arguing that the injuries did not arise out of the employment as required by Section 4 of the Act.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether the injuries claimed by SB were sufficiently linked to their employment to warrant compensation. The court needed to interpret the phrase "injury arising out of employment" as it applies in this context, particularly considering the specific circumstances of SB's employment and the nature of the injuries. The court had to determine if the injuries were a natural and foreseeable consequence of SB's job duties or if they resulted from extraneous factors unrelated to the employment.

In its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented regarding the circumstances of the injuries and their connection to SB's employment. It considered the nature of the injuries, the conditions under which they occurred, and the role of SB's job in facilitating the injuries. The court concluded that the injuries did indeed arise out of SB's employment, as they were a direct consequence of the work activities and conditions specific to the job. Therefore, the claim for compensation was upheld, and the court ruled in favour of SB. The final orders were made accordingly, recognising SB's entitlement to workers' compensation.

Orders