Van Wessem v Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 21 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Van Wessem v Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 214
Hearing dates:30 June 2011
Decision date: 29 July 2011
Before: Giles JA at [1], Hodgson JA at [47],
Handley AJA at [48]
Decision:

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION - sole working director of respondent killed in cycling accident - claim for death benefits compensation - injury was in course of employment - Commission found employment concerned not a substantial contributing factor to the injury (Workers Compensation Act 1987, s 9A(1)) - whether erroneous decision in point of law in so finding - Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Limited [2009] NSWCA 324 - whether approached from perspective of the cycling rather than of the employment concerned - consideration of causal linkage between employment and injury - no erroneous decision in point of law - injury in course of employment does not lead to finding of employment being substantial contributing factor to injury.
APPEALS - need to identify erroneous decision in point of law.
Legislation Cited: Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
Cases Cited: Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Limited [2009] NSWCA 324; (2009) 75 NSWLR 503;
Da Ros v Qantas Airways Limited [2010] NSWCA 89; (2010) 8 DDCR 103;
Durham v Durham [2011] NSWCA 62;
Hevi Lift (PNG) Ltd v Etherington [2005] NSWCA 42; (2005) 2 DDCR 271.
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Susan Van Wessem - Appellant
Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd - First Respondent
Representation: D Campbell SC & R de Meyrick - Appellant
M Cranitch SC & S Flett - Respondent
Beston Macken McManis - Appellant
Sparke Helmore - Respondent
File Number(s):CA 2010/333479
 Decision under appeal 
Citation:
Van Wessem v Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd [2010] NSWWCCPD 97
Date of Decision:
2010-09-10 00:00:00
Before:
Keating P
File Number(s):
WCCA 1-01009/09

Judgment

  1. GILES JA : The appellant is the widow of the late Stephen Van Wessem. Mr Van Wessem was the sole working director of the respondent. He was killed whilst cycling on Bobbin Head Road in the Ku-ring-gai National Park. The appellant claimed death benefits compensation pursuant to s 25 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 ("the 1987 Act"). The workers compensation insurer of the respondent disputed the claim.

  1. In proceedings brought by the appellant in the Workers Compensation Commission under the provisions of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 ("the 1998 Act"), an Arbitrator found in favour of the respondent. On appeal from the Arbitrator's decision the President,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Van Wessem v Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd 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
[2011] NSWCA 214
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a claim for death benefits compensation following the death of Mr. Van Wessem, the sole working director of Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd, who was killed in a cycling accident. The Workers Compensation Commission had found that while the injury occurred in the course of employment, Mr. Van Wessem's employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury, pursuant to section 9A(1) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW). The appeal to the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal questioned whether this finding constituted an error of law.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the Commission had erred in law in its determination that the deceased's employment was not a substantial contributing factor to his death. This required the Court to consider the proper application of section 9A(1) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* and the nature of the causal linkage required between employment and injury. The Court was asked to determine if the Commission had approached the matter from the perspective of the cycling activity itself, rather than from the perspective of the employment concerned.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that an error of law would only arise if the Commission's decision was demonstrably wrong in law. Applying the principles established in cases such as *Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Limited*, the Court found that the Commission had not erred in law. It held that the fact an injury occurs in the course of employment does not automatically mean that the employment is a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The Court concluded that the Commission had correctly considered the causal relationship between the employment and the injury, and that its finding was not erroneous in point of law.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.