| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||
| CITATION: | Veolia Environmental Services Pty Ltd v Gwynne [2014] NSWWCCPD 10 | ||
| APPELLANT: | Veolia Environmental Services Pty Ltd | ||
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | David Gwynne | ||
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Beroa Australia Pty Ltd ATF Beroa Australia Unit Trust | ||
| INSURERS: | Veolia Environmental Service (Australia) Pty Ltd is Self Insured Beroa Australia Pty Ltd ATF Beroa Australia Unit Trust is insured by GIO General Limited | ||
| FILE NUMBER: | A1-12150/12 | ||
| ARBITRATOR: | Ms J Peacock | ||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 22 October 2013 | ||
DATE OF APPEAL HEARING: | 12 February 2014 | ||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 5 March 2014 | ||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Disease provisions; meaning of “employment to the nature of which the disease was due”; aggravation of disease; ss 4(b)(i) and (ii); ss 15 and 16 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 | ||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | President Judge Keating | ||
| HEARING: | Oral | ||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Mr M Underwood, solicitor, Bartier Perry | |
| First Respondent: | Mr T Edwards, instructed by Armstrong Solicitors Pty Ltd | ||
| Second Respondent: | Mr Odling, instructed by Rankin Ellison Lawyers | ||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1. The orders made in the Certificate of Determination dated 22 October 2013 are confirmed. 2. The appellant is to pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the appeal. | ||
BACKGROUND
Mr Gwynne, the first respondent, was employed as a refractory bricklayer which is an occupation that involves constructing brick-lined pots used in the smelting process of aluminium. In late 2004, whilst employed by Andreco Hurll Pty Limited (Andreco Hurll) at the Tomago aluminium smelter, Mr Gwynne came into contact with a substance known as "coal tar pitch” as a result of which he suffered dermatitis and contact folliculitis. Andreco Hurll is not a party to these proceedings.
After leaving Andreco Hurll in July/August 2005, Mr Gwynne was employed by the appellant, Veolia Environmental Services Pty Ltd (Veolia) (formerly known as Collex), from 8 August 2005 until 21 August 2005, however his employment was not formally terminated until early 2007. From September 2007 until August 2008 Mr Gwynne worked as a domestic bricklayer. From 27 August 2008 until 24 October 2008 Mr Gwynne was employed by the second respondent Beroa Australia Pty Ltd ATF Beroa Australia Unit Trust (Beroa). Both Veolia and Beroa were contractors at the Tomago aluminium smelter site.
During the course of his employment with Veolia, Mr Gwynne was exposed to various chemicals including pitch and tar. It is not disputed that exposure to these substances with Veolia caused him to suffer from a disease of gradual process, being an acute phototoxic reaction to pitch and irritant contact folliculitis due to exposure to chemicals. It is accepted that, in respect of the claim against Veolia, the injury is deemed to have occurred on 13 August 2005, when Mr Gwynne was first incapacitated due to his injury with Veolia. Veolia accepted liability for weekly compensation for various periods of incapacity until 9 November 2009.
An issue arose between the parties as to whether Mr Gwynne’s subsequent employment with Beroa was employment to the…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Veolia Environmental Services Pty Ltd v Gwynne 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
- [2014] NSWWCCPD 10
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine if the disease provisions of the Act applied, focusing on whether the employees' diseases were due to the nature of their employment, and if there was an aggravation of pre-existing conditions. The legal issues included the interpretation of "employment to the nature of which the disease was due" and the application of sections 15 and 16 of the Act, which pertain to occupational diseases and aggravation of conditions.
The court concluded that the diseases in question were not attributable to the nature of the employment, as the evidence did not sufficiently link the diseases to the specific employment conditions. The court held that the employees did not meet the criteria under the disease provisions, and therefore, their claims for compensation were dismissed. The appeal was unsuccessful, leading to the confirmation of the earlier determination and an order for the appellant to pay the respondents' costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The orders made in the Certificate of Determination dated 22 October 2013 are confirmed.
2. The appellant is to pay the first and second respondents’ costs of the appeal.
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.