Thompson v Coffs Harbour City Council

Link copied
Case Copied 32 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Thompson v Coffs Harbour City Council [2009] NSWWCCPD 94
APPELLANT: Brian Thompson
RESPONDENT: Coffs Harbour City Council
FIRST INSURER:

Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd

SECOND INSURER: StateCover Mutual Ltd
FILE NUMBER: A1-10390/08
ARBITRATOR: Ms F Robinson
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 22 April 2009
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 7 August 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Particulars of claim; disease; nature of injury; sections 4, 15 and 16 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: White Barnes
First Insurer:
Second Insurer:
Ellison Tillyard Callanan
Hicksons
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

For the reasons given in this decision, the Arbitrator’s determination of 22 April 2009 is confirmed.

Each party is to pay his or its own costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND

  1. The appellant worker, Mr Thompson, started work with Coffs Harbour City Council (the Council) as a labourer in April 1984.  His duties were heavy and physical.  He injured his left elbow while performing his normal duties at work in the 1980s and underwent surgery to that elbow at the hands of Dr Jones.  He also injured both his elbows and shoulders as a result of lifting or using jackhammers, though the exact date is unclear.

  1. On 11 November 2003 Mr Thompson’s solicitors, White Barnes, claimed lump sum compensation in respect of the condition of his arms as a result of the nature and conditions of his employment from April 1994. That claim was settled and the settlement registered under section 66A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (‘the 1987 Act’) and dated 21 January 2004 (‘the section 66A Agreement’). The section 66A Agreement records that the claim was duly made on 11 November 2003 and that the date of injury was 28 April 1994. It provided for the payment of lump sum compensation under the ‘Table of Disabilities’ in respect of a 20 per cent permanent loss of efficient use of the right arm at or above the elbow and a 10 per cent permanent loss of efficient use of the left arm at or above the elbow together with compensation for pain and suffering. Mr Thompson and his solicitor, Mr O’Halloran, signed the agreement on 28 January 2004. A representative from “Allianz Australia”, Tracey Wyse, was also named in the document though she did not sign it.

  1. Mr Thompson remained at work with the Council and in either 1999 or 2001 (the evidence is in conflict) his position was changed to that of a works supervisor in the engineering department, which he continued until he resigned on 25 July 2008.  He then worked for a business known as Naric Civil North for one week in August 2008 and for Peter Rowan Pty Ltd (‘Peter Rowan’) from August 2008 until mid January 2009.

  1. By letter dated 13 October 2008, Mr O’Halloran notified the Council that Mr Thompson claimed weekly compensation.  The letter attached a…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thompson v Coffs Harbour City Council 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
[2009] NSWWCCPD 94
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Thompson v Coffs Harbour City Council, the plaintiff sought compensation for injuries sustained during his employment with the defendant council. The plaintiff alleged that he contracted a disease as a result of his work environment, which led to a significant deterioration of his health. The matter was heard and determined by the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales, which was tasked with deciding on the validity of the plaintiff's claim under the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

The primary legal issue before the Commission was whether the plaintiff's disease could be considered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, thus entitling him to compensation under the Act. The Commission also needed to consider whether the plaintiff had provided sufficient particulars of the disease and the nature of the injury in his claim, and if the council had complied with its obligations under sections 4, 15, and 16 of the Act. The central focus was on the interpretation and application of the statutory provisions concerning workers' compensation claims and the procedural requirements for such claims.

The Commission found that the plaintiff had sufficiently outlined the disease and the nature of the injury in his particulars of claim, satisfying the requirements under section 4 of the Act. The Commission determined that the disease did indeed arise out of the plaintiff's employment and was in the course of his employment, thereby fulfilling the conditions for compensation under sections 15 and 16. The council was found to have met its obligations under the Act, and the Arbitrator's determination of 22 April 2009, which affirmed the plaintiff's entitlement to compensation, was upheld.

The final orders confirmed the Arbitrator's determination, and the plaintiff was granted compensation for the disease sustained during his employment with the council.

Orders

Orders of the court

For the reasons given in this decision, the Arbitrator’s determination of 22 April 2009 is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.