Singh v Westpac Banking Corporation - [2025] NSWPIC 73

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Singh v Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor [2025] NSWPIC 73
APPLICANT:	Narinder Singh
FIRST RESPONDENT:	Westpac Banking Corporation
SECOND RESPONDENT:	TAL Services Limited
MEMBER:	Michael Wright
DATE OF DECISION:	5 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; section 66 claim for primary psychological injury; alleged two injuries with two employers; disputed injury with later employer; consideration of aggravation; Secretary, New South Wales Department of Education v Johnson, and Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Ltd considered; Held – aggravation injury was sustained; referral to Medical Assessor for aggravation injury.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. Pursuant to s 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, the applicant sustained injury by way of aggravation, exacerbation, acceleration or deterioration of primary psychological injury as a result of his employment with TAL Services Limited (the second respondent), deemed to have happened on 22 August 2022. 2. Pursuant to r 77(b) of the Personal Injury Commission Rules, proceedings against Westpac Banking Corporation (the first respondent) are dismissed. 3. I remit this matter to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor pursuant to s 321 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for assessment as follows: a. Date of injury: 22 August 2022 (deemed) – Disease b. Body systems / parts: Psychological/psychiatric disorder c. Method of Assessment: Whole person impairment 4. The documents to be reviewed by the Medical Assessor are: a. Application and attached documents b. Reply of both respondents and attached documents c. Application to admit late documents dated 11 November 2024 and attached documents A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Narinder Singh, the applicant, was employed by Westpac Banking Corporation, the first respondent, as a Customer Manager within the complaints team from 10 August 2020 until
1 August 2022, when TAL Services Limited, the second respondent, took over the group in which the applicant was employed.
The applicant sustained primary psychological injury in the course of his employment with the first respondent deemed to have happened on 28 May 2021. After a period of time off work he returned to work with the first respondent on or about 9 January 2022 with restrictions on the type of work that he was performing. The applicant continued in this employment until the applicant’s area of employment duties was transferred to the second respondent on 1 August 2022. The applicant was there after employed by the second respondent.
Following further work duties in the employee of the second respondent, the applicant ceased working on 22 August 2022 as a result of his psychological symptoms.
The applicant brings a claim in these proceedings for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment in respect of both the first respondent and second respondent.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

I am satisfied that the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made…

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] NSWPIC 73
Decision Date: 5 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Singh v Westpac Banking Corporation was heard in the NSW District Court, where the plaintiff, Mr. Singh, sought compensation for a primary psychological injury under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Mr. Singh alleged that he sustained two separate psychological injuries, with the first arising from his employment with a previous employer and the second from his subsequent employment with Westpac Banking Corporation. The dispute centred on whether Mr. Singh's condition had been aggravated by his employment with Westpac, thereby making Westpac liable for compensation under section 66 of the Act.

The central legal issue before the court was whether Mr. Singh's psychological condition was a primary injury caused by his employment with Westpac or if it was an aggravation of an existing condition that originated from his previous employment. The court had to determine whether the aggravation of a pre-existing condition could be considered a primary injury under the Act, drawing on relevant case law such as Secretary, New South Wales Department of Education v Johnson and Ozcan v Macarthur Disability Services Ltd. The court also needed to assess the evidence presented regarding the nature and extent of Mr. Singh's psychological condition and the impact of his employment with Westpac on that condition.

The court found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Mr. Singh had sustained an aggravation of his pre-existing psychological condition due to his employment with Westpac. The court held that the aggravation of a pre-existing condition could indeed be considered a primary injury under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. By referencing the aforementioned cases, the court determined that the aggravation of Mr. Singh's condition was sufficiently linked to his employment with Westpac to warrant compensation. Consequently, the court ordered that the matter be referred to a Medical Assessor to determine the appropriate compensation for the aggravation injury sustained by Mr. Singh.

Orders