| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER | |
CITATION: | Secora APII Pty Ltd v Fiddes [2025] NSWPICPD 60 |
APPELLANT: | Secora APII Pty Ltd |
FIRST RESPONDENT: | Cathryn Marie Fiddes |
SECOND RESPONDENT: | Nathan Owen Fiddes |
THIRD RESPONDENT: | James Fiddes |
FOURTH RESPONDENT: | Alison Fiddes |
INSURER: | QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited |
FILE NUMBER: | A1-W3848/24 |
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Acting Deputy President Paul Sweeney |
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 13 August 2025 |
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1. The Certificate of Determination dated 11 October 2024 is revoked. 2. The matter is remitted to another non-presidential member for determination of the issues between the parties. |
CATCHWORDS: | WORKERS COMPENSATION – Death of worker – whether inference available that deceased’s employment impaired his diet and sleep – Fuller-Lyons v State of New South Wales(No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1672 applied – evidentiary effect of “slight” knowledge when uncontradicted – whether “common knowledge” that travel to and from work at remote locations can impair diet and sleep – Holland vJones [1917] HCA 26 considered – whether error in determination of “substantial contributing factor” pursuant to s 9A – whether Member engaged with evaluative exercise required by phrase ‘main contributing factor’ in s 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 |
HEARING: | On the papers |
REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: |
| Mr A Joseph, counsel | |
| Hicksons Lawyers | |
| First Respondent: | |
| Mr C Tanner, counsel | |
| Turner Freeman, solicitors | |
| Second Respondent: | |
| Mr R Brown, counsel | |
| Marsdens Law Group | |
| Third Respondent: | |
| Mr A Parker, counsel | |
| Carroll & O’Dea | |
| Fourth Respondent: | |
| No appearance | |
DECISION UNDER APPEAL: | |
SENIOR MEMBER: | Ms E Beilby |
DATE OF SENIOR MEMBER’S DECISION: | 11 October 2024 |
INTRODUCTION
This appeal concerns the liability of Secora APII Pty Limited (the appellant) to pay compensation to the dependants of the late Michael Fiddes (the deceased), who died on 24 May 2023 in the course of his employment while undertaking an assignment at the Bayswater Power Station (Bayswater).
From 2013, the deceased contracted with the appellant to perform consulting work at sites throughout Australia. From April 2022, he worked for the appellant at Bayswater near Muswellbrook in New South Wales.[1]
[1] First respondent’s statement dated 4 June 2024, Application to Admit Late Documents (AALD) 5 June 2024, p 1.
As the deceased resided in Melbourne, he commuted to Bayswater on a weekly basis. He would travel to Muswellbrook on a Monday morning and return to Melbourne either on a Thursday or Friday night.[2] During the working week, he resided with colleagues at the Remington Hotel at Muswellbrook.
[2] AALD 5 June 2024, p 2.
It was the deceased’s custom to telephone his wife, Cathryn (the first respondent), each evening while away from home.[3] During one such call, at approximately 9.10pm on 24 May 2023, the deceased suffered a cardiac arrest in his hotel room. Although his colleagues attempted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), he was unable to be revived.
[3] AALD 5 June 2024, p 2.
On 9 January 2024, a coroner determined that the cause of the deceased’s death…
Continue reading Secora APII Pty Ltd v Fiddes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Secora APII Pty Ltd v Fiddes [2025] NSWPICPD 60
- Case
- [2025] NSWPICPD 60
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included whether the deceased’s employment impaired his diet and sleep to a degree that could be inferred as a contributing factor to his death. The court examined the application of Fuller-Lyons v State of New South Wales (No 3) [2013] NSWSC 1672 and Holland v Jones [1917] HCA 26 in determining the effect of slight knowledge when uncontradicted. It also considered whether the Member of the Workers Compensation Commission had correctly engaged with the evaluative exercise required by the phrase ‘main contributing factor’ in section 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
The court found that the inference that the deceased’s employment impaired his diet and sleep was neither glaringly improbable nor contrary to compelling inferences. It held that the Court of Appeal had not properly weighed the conflicting evidence and drawn its own inferences and conclusions. The court determined that the Member of the Workers Compensation Commission had not correctly applied the evaluative exercise required by section 4(b) of the Act, leading to an error in the determination of the substantial contributing factor.
The final orders of the court were not explicitly detailed in the provided text, but it was noted that the appellant's second ground was made good, indicating a favourable outcome for the appellant in this regard.
Orders
Orders of the court
was neither glaringly improbable nor contrary to compelling inferences. It was the duty of the Court of Appeal to decide for itself which of the two hypotheses was the more probable. It was the duty of the Court of Appeal to persist in its task of ‘weighing [the] conflicting evidence and drawing its own inferences and conclusions’, and, ultimately, to decide for itself which of the two hypotheses was the more probable. It did not. The appellant’s second ground is made good.” (citations omitted; emphasis added).
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.