Sonter v Librix Pty Limited - [2006] NSWWCCPD 269

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR

CITATION:Sonter v Librix Pty Limited [2006] NSWWCCPD 269

APPELLANT: Alan Leslie Sonter

RESPONDENT: Librix Pty Limited

INSURER:QBE Workers Compensation ( NSW) Limited

FILE NUMBER:  WCC21291-05
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:          5 May 2006
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  11 October 2006
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:                Jurisdiction; mental capacity and consent orders.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:  Acting Deputy President Deborah Moore
HEARING:On the papers
REPRESENTATION:  Appellant:      Self Represented
Respondent: Bartier Perry, Solicitors

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: 1. The decision of the Arbitrator dated 5 May 2006 is confirmed.

2. No order as to costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

Alan Leslie Sonter (‘Mr Sonter’) and his wife, Margaret Sonter, were proprietors of the Respondent company, Librix Pty Limited trading as Lady Rene Carpet Cleaners (‘Librix’). Mr Sonter was a director of Librix but claimed that he, his wife and his son Andrew were employees of the company.

Mr Sonter claimed that on 10 July 2002, he went to collect his son Andrew in a company van, because Andrew’s van had apparently broken down. Mr Sonter stated that he then drove Andrew to Andrew’s home where an argument ensued. Mr Sonter was punched violently in the head by Andrew, as a consequence of which he suffered a fractured skull resulting in a severe traumatic brain injury.

Notice of the injury was given to Librix’s insurer, QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (‘QBE’) by way of a claim form completed on 15 October 2002.

By letter dated 5 December 2002 QBE advised Mr Sonter that liability was declined because “… your injury was not related to your employment.” In a further letter to Mr Sonter dated 11 December 2002, QBE advised that “… liability of your claim was denied based on section 9A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.”

On 15 December 2005, Mr Sonter filed an ‘Application to Resolve a Dispute’ seeking weekly benefits compensation, medical, hospital or related expenses and permanent impairment/pain and suffering compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’) and the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’).

On 19 January 2006, Librix filed a ‘Reply’ disputing, inter alia, Mr Sonter’s entitlement to any benefits on the basis that his injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment and further, that his employment with Librix was not a substantial contributing factor to his injury.

The matter was listed for a conciliation/arbitration hearing on 23 March 2006. The matter was not able to conclude on that day and was adjourned part-heard to 4 May 2006.

Following further discussions between the parties on 4 May 2006, the matter resolved. Short Minutes of Order were signed by Mr Sonter, his counsel, and counsel for Librix.

On 5 May 2006, a ‘Certificate of Determination – Consent Orders’ was issued. The determination of the Arbitrator was as follows:

“In this matter a…

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 Sonter v Librix Pty Limited 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: [2006] NSWWCCPD 269
Decision Date: 11 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sonter v Librix Pty Limited involves an appeal by Alan Leslie Sonter against a decision of the Arbitrator, who determined a dispute regarding workers' compensation benefits. The central issue in this case is whether Mr Sonter had the requisite mental capacity to provide informed consent to the resolution of his claim, as well as whether there were any procedural errors in the Arbitrator's handling of the case. Mr Sonter argues that his brain injury impaired his ability to understand the full implications of the settlement agreement, while Librix contends that the settlement was reached in good faith with Mr Sonter's consent and legal representation. The court examined the medical evidence and the proceedings' documentation to assess Mr Sonter's claims. The court concluded that Mr Sonter did not demonstrate any error by the Arbitrator that would warrant interference with the settlement agreement. The evidence suggested that Mr Sonter was given ample time to consider the settlement and that his cognitive impairments did not prevent him from understanding the agreement. The court confirmed the Arbitrator's decision, holding that the settlement agreement between the parties was valid and that Mr Sonter was bound by it.

Orders