Taylor v John Thompson Racing - [2025] NSWPIC 424

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Taylor v John Thompson Racing [2025] NSWPIC 424
APPLICANT:	Teena Taylor
RESPONDENT:	John Thompson Racing
MEMBER:	Adam Halstead
DATE OF DECISION:	21 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act); claim for lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66 of the 1987 Act; whether bilateral knees and left shoulder injuries arose from the nature and conditions of employment with the respondent employer; late notice of injury; section 254 of the 1998 Act considered on special circumstances; late claim for compensation made more than three years after injury; section 261 of the 1998 Act considered on whether serious and permanent disablement in relation to knees; Held – special circumstances for late claim established; insufficient medical evidence to support finding of serious and permanent disablement for knee injury; also insufficient medical evidence to support claim for knee injury; claim for left shoulder impairment below greater than 10% threshold; no basis for referral to medical assessor for left shoulder; award for the respondent.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Personal Injury Commission determines: 1. Award for the respondent. A brief statement is attached setting out the Commission’s reasons for the determination.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Teena Taylor, was employed by the respondent, John Thompson Racing, as a stable hand from around the start of 2007 until 23 June 2013 (or thereabouts). She contends a left shoulder injury and injury to both knees arose due to the nature and conditions of employment. The applicant submitted a claim for lump sum compensation on
2 October 2024. The claim is disputed by the respondent. The applicant lodged an Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) at the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 5 May 2025, that initiated these proceedings.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE PERSONAL INJURY COMMISSION

A preliminary conference occurred on 4 June 2025, when the matter was referred for conciliation conference and arbitration hearing. The Commission convened for arbitration on 10 July 2025. Mr Epstein of counsel, instructed by Mr Nicolopoulos of EPP Law solicitors, appeared for the applicant, who was also present. The respondent was represented by Mr Saul of counsel, instructed by Mr Marsh of Bartier Perry Lawyers, and its delegate was also present, Mr Mitchell.
I am satisfied the parties to the dispute understand the nature of the application and the legal implications of any assertion made in the information supplied. I endeavoured to bring the parties to the dispute to an acceptable settlement. The parties had sufficient opportunity to explore settlement. They were unable to reach an agreed resolution of the dispute.
The applicant sought leave to amend the ARD at the commencement of the hearing, the respondent did not object and leave was granted. The amount of lump sum compensation claimed was changed to $38,500 by amendment to the “Total WPI Amount”.[1] Reference to “right upper extremity” was deleted as a “Systems Claimed” and reference to “both shoulders” in the “Injury Description”…

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.

Continue reading Taylor v John Thompson Racing

Details

AGLC: Taylor v John Thompson Racing [2025] NSWPIC 424
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 424
Decision Date: 21 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Taylor v John Thompson Racing, the dispute centred around a claim for lump sum compensation under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act). The claimant, Taylor, alleged that bilateral knee and left shoulder injuries arose from the nature and conditions of his employment with John Thompson Racing. The respondent employer, John Thompson Racing, contested the claim, asserting that the notice of injury was late and the claimant had not provided sufficient medical evidence to substantiate the claimed injuries.

The court was tasked with determining whether the injuries claimed by Taylor were indeed work-related and if the notice of injury was given within the required timeframe. Additionally, the court had to assess the validity of the claim under section 254 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (1998 Act) in light of the late notice and under section 261 of the 1998 Act regarding the seriousness and permanence of the injuries. The court needed to weigh the evidence presented and decide whether special circumstances justified the late claim for compensation.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the court found that special circumstances did exist for the late claim, allowing the compensation claim to proceed despite the late notice. However, the court concluded that there was insufficient medical evidence to support the finding of serious and permanent disablement in relation to the knee injuries. Furthermore, the medical evidence did not substantiate the claim for the knee injury. Regarding the left shoulder, the court found that the impairment was below the greater than 10% threshold, and thus, there was no basis for a referral to a medical assessor. Consequently, the court dismissed the claim for compensation and awarded costs to the respondent employer.

Orders