Singh v Westpac Banking Corporation - [2025] NSWPICMP 602

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL PANEL
CITATION:	Singh v Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor [2025] NSWPICMP 602
APPELLANT:	Narinder Singh
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Westpac Banking Corporation
SECOND RESPONDENT:	TAL Services Limited
APPEAL PANEL
MEMBER:	Catherine McDonald
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Douglas Andrews
MEDICAL ASSESSOR:	Professor Nicholas Glozier
DATE OF DECISION:	12 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998; review of Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC); psychological injury; claim against two respondents; proceedings against first respondent dismissed and aggravation injury with second respondent referred to Medical Assessor (MA); MA assessed whole person impairment (WPI) at time of employment with second employer and deducted it under section 323; Mathieson v Baptistcare New South Wales & ACT; MA’s obligations with respect to other medical reports; State of New South Wales (NSW Department of Education) v Kaur; Held – MAC confirmed.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPLICATION TO APPEAL

On 16 May 2025 Narinder Singh lodged an Application to Appeal Against the Decision of a Medical Assessor. The medical dispute was assessed by Medical Assessor Alan Doris, who issued a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) on 7 May 2025.
Mr Singh relies on the following grounds of appeal under s 327(3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act):
· the assessment was made on the basis of incorrect criteria, and
· the MAC contains a demonstrable error.
The President’s delegate was satisfied that, on the face of the application, at least one ground of appeal was made out, being that the Medical Assessor made a demonstrable error with respect to a deduction for a pre-existing condition. We conducted a review of the original medical assessment, limited to the grounds of appeal on which the appeal is made.
Rule 128 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 (the PIC Rules) and Procedural Direction PIC7 – Appeals, reviews, reconsiderations and correction of obvious errors in medical disputes set out the practice and procedure in relation to the medical appeal process under s 328 of the 1998 Act. An Appeal Panel determines its own procedures in accordance with r 128(1) of the PIC Rules.
The assessment of permanent impairment is conducted in accordance with the SIRA NSW Workers Compensation Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 4^th ed 1 March 2021 (the Guidelines) and the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, 5^th ed (AMA 5).

RELEVANT FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mr Singh was employed by BT Financial Group, part of Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac) as a customer manager in a complaints team between 10 August 2020 and 1 August 2022, when the group in which he was employed was taken over by TAL Services Limited (TAL).
Mr Singh suffered a psychological injury on 28 May 2021 whilst employed by Westpac. He was incapacitated for work between 18 October 2021 and 9 January 2022 when he returned to work on a graduated basis, performing “lower stress” tasks. His workload increased when TAL took over the business. His…

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 Singh v Westpac Banking Corporation 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] NSWPICMP 602
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v Westpac Banking Corporation involved the claimant, Singh, pursuing a review of a Medical Assessment Certificate (MAC) related to a psychological injury he sustained during his employment. The dispute was heard in the Workers Compensation NCAT, where Singh contested the MAC issued under the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether the Medical Assessor (MA) correctly assessed Singh's whole person impairment (WPI) in relation to the psychological injury, and whether the MA fulfilled their obligations with respect to other medical reports.

The court examined the procedure followed by the MA, focusing on the requirement to consider Singh's WPI at the time of his employment with the second respondent. The court referred to previous cases, such as Mathieson v Baptistcare New South Wales & ACT, to understand the proper approach to assessing WPI in the context of psychological injuries. Furthermore, the decision in State of New South Wales (NSW Department of Education) v Kaur was considered to assess whether the MA appropriately addressed other relevant medical reports. Ultimately, the court found that the MA's assessment was conducted correctly and in accordance with the relevant legal framework.

The reasoning of the court led to the conclusion that the MAC was confirmed. The court found no fault in the MA's assessment of Singh's WPI and determined that the obligations under the Act were met. Consequently, the court dismissed Singh's appeal and upheld the MAC as issued. The final orders of the court reflected this outcome, confirming the MAC and dismissing Singh's claim for review.

Orders