Sidrak v Frontline Fitouts Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 653

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Sidrak v Frontline Fitouts Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 653
APPLICANT:	Christopher Sidrak
RESPONDENT:	Frontline Fitouts Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Parnel McAdam
DATE OF DECISION:	27 November 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Applicant injured in car accident after suffering an idiopathic loss of consciousness; whether injury suffered arising out of or in course of employment; whether employment substantial contributing factor to injury; applicant returning from work-related meeting at time of accident; extent of incapacity; calculation of PIAWE; applicant paid benefits under the motor accidents legislation; whether section 46 applies to reduce the weekly benefits payable to the applicant; Held – applicant suffered injury arising out of the course of employment; injury was car accident, not idiopathic loss of consciousness; applicant had no current work capacity since date of injury and continues to have no current work capacity; section 46 not exercisable in present circumstances; award made for weekly payments from date of accident and continuing.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. The applicant suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with the respondent on 13 August 2022. 2. Employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. 3. The applicant has had no current work capacity since 13 August 2022 and continues to have no current work capacity. 4. The applicant’s Pre-Injury Average Weekly Earnings are assessed to be $1946.44. 5. The Commission has no power to reduce the weekly benefits payable under s 46 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation in the following amounts: a. from 13 August 2022 to 1 October 2022, at the rate of 95% of $1,946.44; b. from 1 October 2022 to 12 November 2022, at the rate of 95% of $1,966.44; c. from 12 November 2022 to 31 March 2023, at the rate of 80% of $1,966.44; d. from 1 April 2023 to 30 September 2023 at the rate of 80% of $2,011.37; e. from 1 October 2023 to 31 March 2024 at the rate of 80% of $2,035.24; f. from 1 April 2024 to 30 September 2024 at the rate of 80% of $2,097.51, and g. from 1 October 2024 to date and continuing at the rate of 80% of $2,161.69. 7. The respondent is to have credit for any amounts paid under the workers compensation legislation. 8. The amounts set out in [6] are as indexed according to the legislation. The amount in [6(g)] is to be indexed from time to time according to the legislation. 9. Liberty to apply in respect of the calculation of weekly payments set out in [6].

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The incident at the centre of this dispute occurred on 13 August 2022. Mr Sidrak was driving when he collided with a tree, sustaining traumatic injuries. It is not clear precisely what caused this to occur, but it is apparent that Mr Sidrak blacked out behind the wheel, causing him to veer off…

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 Sidrak v Frontline Fitouts Pty Ltd 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: [2024] NSWPIC 653
Decision Date: 27 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sidrak v Frontline Fitouts Pty Ltd involved a dispute between an employee, Mr Sidrak, and his employer, Frontline Fitouts Pty Ltd, concerning the nature and extent of an injury sustained by the employee and the related compensation entitlements under the workers' compensation scheme. The matter was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland. The primary dispute centred on whether the injury Mr Sidrak suffered in a car accident was caused by an idiopathic loss of consciousness or the accident itself, and whether the injury arose out of or in the course of his employment. Furthermore, the court had to determine the extent of Mr Sidrak's incapacity and the appropriate calculation of his Permanent Impairment Assessment Weekly Earnings (PIAWE). Additionally, the case addressed whether the employer should be liable for a reduction in weekly benefits payable to Mr Sidrak due to benefits he had already received under the motor accidents legislation.

The court was tasked with discerning whether Mr Sidrak's injury was work-related and whether his employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The evidence showed that Mr Sidrak was returning from a work-related meeting at the time of the accident. The court had to consider if the accident was the result of an idiopathic loss of consciousness or the collision itself, and whether the former could be considered an injury arising from the employment. The court also examined the extent of Mr Sidrak's incapacity, finding that he had no current work capacity since the date of the injury and continued to lack such capacity. Additionally, the court deliberated on whether section 46 of the relevant legislation applied to reduce the weekly benefits payable to Mr Sidrak due to his receipt of benefits under the motor accidents legislation.

After thorough consideration, the court found that Mr Sidrak's injury was indeed an accident and not due to an idiopathic loss of consciousness. It was also determined that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, as he was returning from a work-related meeting at the time of the accident. The court concluded that Mr Sidrak had no current work capacity and continued to have no work capacity. The court further determined that section 46 did not apply to reduce the weekly benefits payable to Mr Sidrak in the present circumstances. The court made an award for weekly payments from the date of the accident and continuing, recognising the full extent of Mr Sidrak's incapacity and his ongoing need for compensation.

Orders