Veli v Daikin Australia Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWPIC 720

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Veli v Daikin Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWPIC 720
APPLICANT:	Hakan Veli
RESPONDENT:	Daikin Australia Pty Limited
MEMBER:	Rachel Homan
DATE OF DECISION:	20 December 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for weekly benefits and lump sum compensation in respect of psychological injury; whether injury wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action by or on behalf of the employer pursuant to s 11A(1) where clinical notes and applicant’s lay evidence indicated injury was due to multiple adverse interactions over several years; decompensation following informal meeting to discuss conduct issues; Held – respondent failed to establish injury wholly or predominantly caused by the meeting and subsequent events; section 11A(1) defence fails; no medical dispute regarding degree of permanent impairment; award for compensation pursuant to section 66; award for weekly compensation pursuant to section 38(6).
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The respondent has failed to establish that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of the employer with respect to performance appraisal, discipline or provision of employment benefits to workers for the purposes of s 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. The respondent to pay the applicant lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in the amount of $59,890 for 22% whole person impairment resulting from the psychological injury deemed to have occurred on 26 March 2021. 3. The respondent to pay the applicant weekly compensation from 14 February 2024 to date and continuing in accordance with s 38(6) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 based on the agreed pre-injury average weekly earnings rate of $1,310, as periodically indexed.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Mr Hakan Veli (the applicant) was employed by Daikin Australia Pty Limited (the respondent) as an accounts receivable clerk. It is not in dispute that the applicant sustained a psychological injury in the course of or arising out of his employment with the respondent.
The applicant made a claim for lump sum compensation in respect of the injury on 27 July 2023. In a notice issued pursuant to s 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) on 20 December 2023, the respondent’s insurer disputed liability to pay compensation in respect of the injury relying on a defence under s 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act).
The applicant commenced the current proceedings by lodgement of an Application to Resolve a Dispute in the Personal Injury Commission (Commission) on 30 July 2024. The applicant sought lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 of the 1987 Act and weekly compensation from 26 March 2021 on an ongoing basis.

ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION

The parties agree that the following issues remain in dispute:
(a) whether the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by or on behalf of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Veli v Daikin Australia 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: [2024] NSWPIC 720
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Veli v Daikin Australia Pty Ltd, the applicant, Veli, pursued a claim for weekly benefits and lump sum compensation relating to psychological injury sustained during his employment. The dispute centred on whether the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken by or on behalf of the employer, which would trigger the application of section 11A(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The case was heard and determined in the Workers Compensation Commission of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the psychological injury experienced by the applicant was predominantly caused by reasonable actions of the employer. This required the court to examine the evidence presented, including clinical notes and the applicant’s testimony, to determine if the injury was attributable to multiple adverse interactions over several years, culminating in a decompensation episode following an informal meeting with the employer regarding conduct issues. The respondent argued that the meeting and subsequent events were the predominant cause of the injury, thereby invoking the defence under section 11A(1).

The court considered the evidence and concluded that the respondent had not established that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the meeting and subsequent events. There was no medical dispute regarding the degree of permanent impairment caused by the injury. Consequently, the defence under section 11A(1) failed, and the applicant was entitled to compensation. The court awarded compensation pursuant to section 66 and weekly compensation pursuant to section 38(6) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.

Orders