State of New South Wales v Rattenbury

The State of New South Wales appealed against an arbitrator's determination that a claim for workers' compensation by Mr Rattenbury was valid. The central issue was whether Mr Rattenbury had suffered an aggravation of a disease or contracted a disease in the course of his employment, specifically focusing on whether his employment was the main contributing factor to his psychological injury. The dispute involved the interpretation of disease provisions in the Workers Compensation Act 1987, particularly sections 4(b)(i) and (ii), and the assessment of expert evidence in the context of psychological injury.

The court considered the principles set out in Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Ltd, which emphasised the need for objective corroboration of complaints and a clear causal link between the employment and the psychological injury. It also referenced Chanaa v Zarour, which highlighted the necessity of the incapacity resulting from the injury found to be due to the employment. The court examined whether the employment was the main contributing factor to the injury, applying the "eggshell psyche" principle as discussed in State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Chemler. The court held that the Arbitrator's determination correctly applied these principles and found that the appeal should be dismissed.

The court confirmed the Arbitrator's determination of 1 May 2015, amended on 2 June 2015, finding that Mr Rattenbury's psychological injury was caused by his employment and thus compensable under the Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's name was amended to be the State of New South Wales.