St Mary's School v Askwith

[2011] VSCA 90

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2009 3887

ST MARY'S SCHOOL	Appellant
	v
JENNIFER ASKWITH	Respondent

---

JUDGES	WARREN CJ, ASHLEY JA and KYROU AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	4 April 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT	5 April 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2011] VSCA 90
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Askwith v St Mary’s School (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Wischusen, 19 August 2009)

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – Workers compensation – Whether injury arising out of or in the course of employment – Whether employment a significant contributing factor – Respondent suffered psychiatric disorder prior to employment – Psychiatric disorder deteriorated during course of employment – Non-employment factors relevant to deterioration – Respondent rendered incapacitated for suitable employment – Stress associated with employment significant contributing factor to psychiatric deterioration –Whether trial judge adequately and completely considered Appellant’s expert psychiatric evidence – Whether trial judge properly identified contribution made by compensable injury to psychiatric disorder – Whether trial judge failed to take into account matters identified in s 5(1B)(d), (f) and (g) Accident Compensation Act 1985 (Vic) – Whether trial judge gave adequate reasons for decision – Trial judge properly considered evidence – Trial judge took into account all relevant considerations – Trial judge gave adequate reasons for decision – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R Gorton QC and Mr J Gorton	Minter Ellison
For the Respondent	Mr A Keogh SC and Mr S Carson	Maurice Blackburn

WARREN CJ:

1. I have had the benefit of reading the judgment of Justice Ashley and agree with his Honour’s reasons.

ASHLEY JA:

1. A County Court judge held that the respondent, Jennifer Askwith, a woman born 26 May 1962, had suffered compensable injury in the course of her employment as a teacher by the appellant, St Mary’s School.  Her employment commenced at the beginning of the school year in 2005, and for practical purposes continued until 11 October 2006.  The judge therefore set aside the decision of the WorkCover insurer to reject the respondent’s claim for compensation.

1. The judge below identified the live issue in the trial as follows:

In substance, the issue in the case was this.  It was the plaintiff’s case that her work and her dealings with the people she worked with at St Mary’s School was a significant contributing factor to the deterioration in her mental health which occurred in the year 2006.  The plaintiff pointed to a number of aspects of her experiences at St Mary’s School which, taken together, amounted to a significant contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation and deterioration of her mental health.  It was the defendant’s case that the worsening in 2006 was a result of non-work factors and that if employment played any part at all, which was denied, it did not satisfy the statutory requirement that it be a significant contributing factor.  The defendant pointed to other circumstances in the plaintiff’s life which it said readily explained or caused the worsening of the plaintiff’s condition…