Unilever Australia Ltd v Saab

Unilever Australia Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of the Compensation Court of New South Wales concerning a claim for workers' compensation. The appellant, a former employee of the respondent, alleged he had suffered a gradual hearing loss as a result of working in noisy conditions at the respondent's factory. The central dispute revolved around when the appellant was deemed to have "received" his injury for the purposes of the six-month time limit prescribed by s 261(6) of the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998* (NSW).

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was to determine the correct interpretation of "injury received" in the context of a gradual onset injury, specifically hearing loss. This required the court to consider when a worker is taken to be aware of their injury, and whether this awareness is established by the worker's own belief or opinion that the injury is causally related to their employment, or only upon receiving appropriate medical advice confirming the diagnosis and cause. The court had to grapple with the concepts of "awareness" and "knowledge" in relation to a condition where the causal link is a matter for expert determination.

The Court of Appeal held that for a gradual onset injury, awareness of the injury, for the purposes of the statutory time limit, does not necessarily require the worker to have received expert medical advice confirming the causal link. Instead, awareness can be established by the worker's own subjective belief or suspicion that their condition is work-related, even if that belief is not yet medically substantiated. The court reasoned that the statutory language focused on the worker's knowledge or awareness of the injury itself and its connection to their employment, rather than requiring a definitive medical diagnosis of the cause. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, with the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.