| 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
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.
The Respondent to the Appeal is Craig Anthony Morrissey (‘the Respondent Worker’).
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.
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.
The Respondent Worker’s statement dated 20 November 2008 indicates the company continued operating after the Kenworth prime mover…
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWWCCPD 85
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.