Temple v Woolworths Group Limited - [2021] NSWPIC 287

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
Citation:	Temple v Woolworths Group Limited [2021] NSWPIC 287
APPLICANT:	Rebeccah Temple
First RESPONDENT:	Woolworths Group Limited
Second Respondent:	Allstaff Australia Pty Ltd
Member:	Kerry Haddock
Date of decision:	10 August 2021
Catchwords:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Claim for weekly benefits and medical expenses against two respondents; accepted frank injury to lumbar spine in employ of second respondent; claim of injury to lumbar spine as a result of nature and conditions/aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of disease in employ of first respondent; application of section 4(b)(ii) and section16 of the 1987 Act; Austin v Director General of Education, Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch, Cant v Catholic Schools Office and AV v AW applied.
Determinations made:	1. That there is an award for the second respondent. 2. That there is an award for the applicant against the first respondent for weekly benefits as follows: (a) At the rate of $426.25 per week from 21 July 2020 to 20 October 2020, pursuant to section 36 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; and (b) At the rate of $280 per week from 21 October 2020 to date and continuing, pursuant to section 37 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 3. That there is an award for the applicant against the first respondent for medical treatment, pursuant to section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

The applicant, Rebeccah Temple (Ms Temple) was employed by the first respondent, Woolworths Group Limited (Woolworths) and the second respondent, Allstaff Australia Pty Ltd (Allstaff) as a store person/picker/packer.

Ms Temple was firstly employed by Allstaff, which is a labour hire service, and which contracted with Woolworths. She later became employed by Woolworths, performing similar duties at the same workplace.

The applicant sustained an injury to her lumbar spine on 9 November 2017, in the employ of Allstaff, when she was struck by a forklift/pallet truck. Liability was accepted by Allstaff’s workers’ compensation insurer, AAI Limited trading as GIO (GIO) and compensation was paid. Ms Temple claims that the nature and conditions of her employment with Woolworths caused injury to her lumbar spine, or in the alternative aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of lumbar spine disease.
On 27 March 2018, GIO wrote to the applicant advising her that, as she had returned to pre-injury duties from 25 November 2017 [sic] and her last known treatment was on 15 March 2018, it would close its file should it not hear from her within 14 days.
Ms Temple completed a Worker’s Injury Claim Form (the Claim Form) on 10 August 2020. She recorded the date of injury as “deemed” 18 July 2020. She stated that on 21 July 2020 she was lifting a washing basket weighing less than 2 kg “(with dry clothes)” when she “felt a large pulling/stabbing pain”. She felt her back “pop”.
The applicant described her work as picking and packing pallets all day. This required her to repetitively lift, move, bend and squat. She…

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 Temple v Woolworths Group 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: [2021] NSWPIC 287
Decision Date: 10 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Temple v Woolworths Group Limited involves a claim for workers' compensation benefits and medical expenses against two respondents. The applicant, Temple, alleges that he sustained a frank injury to his lumbar spine while employed by the second respondent, Woolworths Group Limited, and further claims that the nature and conditions of his employment with the first respondent, a previous employer, caused injury to his lumbar spine or aggravated, accelerated, exacerbated, or deteriorated a pre-existing disease. The matter was heard in the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the applicant's injury to his lumbar spine was a result of the employment with the second respondent or whether the first respondent's employment conditions caused or contributed to the injury. The court also needed to determine the applicability of sections 4(b)(ii) and 16 of the 1987 Act and how previous cases such as Austin v Director General of Education, Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch, Cant v Catholic Schools Office, and AV v AW applied to the current matter.

In its reasoning, the court noted that the applicant had successfully established a frank injury to his lumbar spine during his employment with Woolworths Group Limited. However, it was determined that the evidence did not support the applicant's claim that his employment with the first respondent caused or contributed to the injury to his lumbar spine or the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation, or deterioration of a pre-existing disease. The court applied the relevant sections of the 1987 Act and considered the precedent set by the cases cited to conclude that the applicant's claims against the first respondent were not substantiated. As a result, the court dismissed the applicant's claims against the first respondent.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's claim for workers' compensation benefits and medical expenses against the first respondent be dismissed, while the claim against the second respondent, Woolworths Group Limited, was to proceed as it related to the frank injury to the lumbar spine sustained during employment with that entity.

Orders