Trewin v Pickwick Group Pty Ltd

[2017] ACTSC 93

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Trewin v Pickwick Group Pty Ltd

Citation:

[2017] ACTSC 93

Hearing Date:

28 April 2017

DecisionDate:

3 May 2017

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See paragraph [42] 

Catchwords:

APPEAL – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Appeal from the Magistrates Court – workplace injury – claim for workers’ compensation – expert evidence – whether the Chief Magistrate’s findings were supported by the evidence  

Legislation Cited:

Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT)

Cases Cited:

Beale v Government Insurance Office (NSW) (1997) 48 NSWLR 430

Container Terminals Australia Ltd v Huseyin [2008] NSWCA 320
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118
Mason v Demasi [2009] NSWCA 227

Parties:

Simon Trewin (Appellant)

Pickwick Group Pty Ltd (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr A Muller (Appellant)

Mr J Sexton SC and Mr P Woulfe (Respondent)

Solicitors

Slater & Gordon Lawyers (Appellant)

Moray & Agnew Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number:

SCA 78 of 2016

Decision under appeal: 

Court: Magistrates Court of the ACT

Before:  Chief Magistrate Walker

Date of Decision:         23 September 2016

Case Title:  Trewin v Pickwick Group Pty Ltd

Court File Numbers:      WC 352 of 2015

ELKAIM J:

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Chief Magistrate, given on 23 September 2016. The appeal is by way of re-hearing. This entails a review of the evidence and of the Chief Magistrate’s reasons for her decision. In order for the appeal to succeed, the appellant must establish that the Chief Magistrate fell into error.

1. In brief, the following are the background facts: On 22 June 2015, the appellant commenced employment as a business development manager with the respondent. In that role, he was expected to attract new business to his employer. His employment was terminated on 19 August 2015.

1. On 24 August 2015, the appellant lodged a claim for workers compensation, pursuant to the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) (the Act). He sought weekly payments and medical expenses.

1. The claim related to the nature and conditions of his employment. The appellant alleged that, between 22 June and 5 August 2015, he was required to work at an inappropriate workstation. This, he alleges, caused him to suffer an injury to his lower back and, or alternatively, an aggravation of an underlying lower back condition.

1. The claim also concerned a specific injury alleged to have occurred on 5 August 2015. The appellant alleged that he was injured while getting out of his motor vehicle at his place of work.

1. On 16 August 2015, the appellant participated in a bush walk. The walk took about two hours.

1. The appellant’s claim was rejected on 18 September 2015. The appellant then lodged an Application for Arbitration by Injured Worker on 5 October 2015. An amended application was lodged on 15 April 2016.

1. The application was heard by Chief Magistrate Walker from 1 June to 3 June 2016 and on 17 August 2016. On 23 September 2016, Her Honour dismissed the appellant’s claim.

1. A Notice of Appeal was filed…