Legal Research
Cases
Tamworth Regional Council v Meredith

Tamworth Regional Council v Meredith

Link copied

Case Copied 11 March 2025 54 min read

Contents

On this page

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Tamworth Regional Council v Meredith [2025] NSWPICPD 20
APPELLANT:	Tamworth Regional Council
RESPONDENT:	Mark Meredith
INSURER:	StateCover Mutual Limited
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W22518/24
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	11 March 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. Leave to appeal an interlocutory order is granted pursuant to s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 2. The Member’s Certificate of Determination dated 1 October 2024 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – No error of law where there is evidence, if believed, that would support the Member’s finding – Nicolia v Commissioner for Railways (1971) 45 ALJR 465; Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Limited [2010] HCA 32 – alleged error of fact –Whiteley Muir & Zwanenberg Ltd v Kerr (1966) 39 ALJR 505 applied – drawing inferences from findings of fact – Flounders v Millar [2007] NSWCA 238 applied – the application of common or judicial knowledge – Strinic v Singh [2009] NSWCA 15 discussed – a party is bound by the conduct of its case in the proceedings below – University of Wollongong vMetwally (No. 2) [1985] HCA 28 applied – expert evidence – s 43 of the Personal Injury Commission Act 2020 – the Commission is not bound by the rules of evidence – South Western Sydney Area Health Service v Edmonds [2007] NSWCA 16; Hancock v East Coast Timber Products Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 11; State of New South Wales (Fire and Rescue NSW) v Sinclair [2025] NSWPICPD 8 applied – Dasreef Pty Ltd v Hawchar [2011] HCA 21; Honeysett v The Queen [2014] HCA 29 distinguished
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr R Brown, counsel
BBW Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr B McManamey, counsel
GMP Law
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Meredith v Tamworth Regional Council [2024] NSWPIC 541
MEMBER:	Mr A Halstead
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	1 October 2024

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Mr Mark Meredith (the respondent) was employed by Tamworth Regional Council (the appellant) as a grader operator. He suffered an injury to his head, neck, right shoulder and right arm on 20 January 2020 when he tripped on debris on the job site and fell approximately 1.5 to 2.5 meters (described by him in his statement as “6–8 foot”[1]) down an embankment, landing heavily.
[1] Respondent’s statement, Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 4, [11].
Liability for the injuries to the neck, right shoulder and right elbow was accepted.
In about mid-2022, the respondent began to experience pain and stiffness in his left shoulder, which gradually worsened. The respondent claimed that because of the difficulties in his right arm he was unable to perform tasks with his right arm and had to use his left arm for many daily activities.
The respondent asserted that because he was using his left arm more frequently in order to spare his right arm, his left shoulder symptoms were consequential to the…

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 Tamworth Regional Council v Meredith 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] NSWPICPD 20
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Tamworth Regional Council versus Meredith, the dispute before the court involved an assessment of a claim for workers' compensation. The case was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The appellant, Tamworth Regional Council, contested the decision of the Personal Injury Commission, which had awarded damages to the respondent, Meredith, following an injury sustained during the course of employment.

The legal issues before the court encompassed whether the Commission had erred in its findings of fact and whether it had correctly applied the law in arriving at its decision. Specifically, the court had to determine if the evidence, when viewed in the light most favourable to the Commission's findings, supported its conclusions. The court also considered the extent to which expert evidence could be relied upon by the Commission in making its determinations.

The court found no error of law in the Commission's decision, affirming that if the evidence, when assessed in the light most favourable to the Commission's findings, could support those findings, then there was no basis for the court to interfere. The court emphasised that it was not its role to re-evaluate the evidence or to substitute its own findings for those of the Commission. The application of common or judicial knowledge was also discussed, reinforcing that the Commission was not bound by the rules of evidence but could draw reasonable inferences from the facts presented. The court concluded that the Commission's decision was within its legal and factual ambit and thus upheld the award of damages to Meredith.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the Personal Injury Commission. The orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, with the appellant to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.

Orders