Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey (No 3)

Link copied
Case Copied 32 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey (No 3) [2009] NSWWCCPD 85
APPELLANT: Toll Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Craig Anthony Morrissey
INSURER: Self insurer

FILE NUMBER:

ARBITRATOR:

A1-2123/07

Mr C Messenger

DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 9 February 2009
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 29 July 2009
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Discretionary admission of unserved DVD – Rule 10.3(3); assessment under section 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – application of JC Ludowici & Son Limited v Cutri (1992) 26 NSWLR 580.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Michael Snell
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant:

Leigh Virtue & Associates

Respondent: M.J. Duffy & Son
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: The decision of the Arbitrator dated 9 February 2009 is revoked and the matter is remitted to another Arbitrator for determination afresh in accordance with these reasons.
The Respondent Worker’s costs of obtaining and serving a statement dated 24 June 2009 are to form part of his costs on the further arbitration. Otherwise no order as to costs of the appeal.

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

  1. On 9 March 2009 Toll Pty Ltd (‘the Appellant Employer’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 9 February 2009.

  1. The Respondent to the Appeal is Craig Anthony Morrissey (‘the Respondent Worker’).

  1. The Respondent Worker is now 37 years of age, and claims two dependant children. He commenced working for the Appellant Employer as a truck driver in 2001. He alleges injury to his back and left leg on 30 January 2003, while changing a tyre in the course of that employment. A wheel brace he was using to tighten nuts slipped, and he fell to his knees. His work thereafter, with the Appellant Employer, is set out in the decision of Handley ADP in Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey [2007] NSWWCCPD 221 (‘Morrissey’) at [2]. There were periods on and off work, and periods of lighter duties. The Respondent Worker ceased carrying out duties for the Appellant Employer on 18 February 2005, and his employment was terminated on 4 May 2005.

  1. The Respondent Worker and his wife had, from before his injury on 30 January 2003, owned a Kenworth prime mover, that he said he used to do “some harvest work for grain growers in the Gilgandra area”. He said that, from when light duties with the Appellant Employer were no longer available for him in February 2005, he began looking for truck driving work using this truck. From 18 October 2006 he and his wife incorporated a company, C & J Morrissey Transport Pty Limited (‘the company’). He states he could not “do enough truck driving to earn enough money to keep the company going”, and the truck and a trailer were sold in April 2007.

  1. The Respondent Worker’s statement dated 20 November 2008 indicates the company continued operating after the Kenworth prime mover…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey (No 3) 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 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Toll Pty Ltd v Morrissey (No 3) involved the parties, Toll Pty Ltd as the employer and Morrissey as the employee, with the dispute concerning the assessment of Morrissey's entitlement to workers' compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The case was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the Arbitrator had the discretion to admit an unserved DVD under Rule 10.3(3) of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules 2000 and if the application of the principles from JC Ludowici & Son Limited v Cutri (1992) 26 NSWLR 580 was appropriate in this context.

The court examined whether the Arbitrator exercised their discretion correctly in admitting the unserved DVD and whether the principles established in JC Ludowici & Son Limited v Cutri should apply to the circumstances of this case. The court held that the Arbitrator had indeed exercised a discretion under Rule 10.3(3) but found that it was not properly exercised in this instance. The court also considered the application of the JC Ludowici principles, finding that they were correctly applied but did not change the outcome regarding the discretionary admission of the DVD. Consequently, the decision of the Arbitrator was revoked and the matter was remitted to another Arbitrator for a fresh determination in accordance with the court's reasons.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the Arbitrator dated 9 February 2009 is revoked, and the matter is remitted to another Arbitrator for determination afresh in accordance with the reasons provided by the court.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Arbitrator dated 9 February 2009 is revoked and the matter is remitted to another Arbitrator for determination afresh in accordance with these reasons.

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.