Vinidex Pty Ltd v Campbell

Link copied
Case Copied 37 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Vinidex Pty Ltd v Campbell [2012] NSWWCCPD 6
APPELLANT: Vinidex Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT: Gregory Campbell
INSURER: QBE Insurance (Australia) Limited
FILE NUMBER: A1-4995/11
ARBITRATOR: Mr Jeffrey Phillips
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 17 October 2011
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 10 February 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Injury in the course of employment: s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; employment being a substantial contributing factor to the injury: s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; serious and wilful misconduct; serious and permanent disablement: s 14(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Kevin O'Grady
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Bartier Perry Lawyers
Respondent: Slater & Gordon Lawyers

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.     For the reasons given in this decision the Arbitrator’s determination of 17 October 2011 is confirmed.

2.     Appellant is to pay the costs of this appeal.

BACKGROUND

  1. Mr Gregory Campbell was employed as a production operator in the manufacture of plastic pipes by Vinidex Pty Ltd, the appellant, at its premises near Wagga Wagga, New South Wales. At 6.30 pm on 17 August 2010, Mr Campbell attended work on his scheduled 12 hour shift. He worked with a supervisor, Mr Jeremy Kelleher and fellow worker Mr Jamie Watson. During that shift, at approximately 2.20 am, Mr Campbell was injured. By reason of a head injury then received, he is unable to recall the circumstances.

  2. There is no dispute as to the basic facts concerning the occurrence of the subject injury. It seems that a decision was made that night by Mr Campbell, Mr Kelleher and Mr Watson to cut a plastic pipe and to fashion a “board” which they intended to use as a “wake board” as it was towed on the factory floor by a forklift. A sling attached to the board was fastened to the towing pin on the forklift. A small “board” was used first. Mr Kelleher, who had cut that particular board, then cut and fabricated a larger board. That larger board was attached to the forklift by a sling. Mr Kelleher drove off in the forklift at which time both Mr Campbell and Mr Watson were on the board. The board was towed between line two and line eleven within the factory premises. Mr Kelleher turned the forklift to the left and commenced to make a U‑turn. At that time the board swung outwards causing Mr Campbell and Mr Watson to either fall or jump off. As Mr Campbell left the board he fell, striking his head on a timber support used to align pipes stored on the factory floor.

  3. An ambulance attended the scene and Mr Campbell was transported to the Wagga Wagga base hospital. He was subsequently transferred to the St George hospital in Sydney. A CT scan demonstrated “bilateral small subdural haematomas with right temporal lobe contusions and blood located in the midline just beneath the tentorium cerebelli”.…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Vinidex Pty Ltd v Campbell 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
[2012] NSWWCCPD 6
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vinidex Pty Ltd appealed against a determination by the Arbitrator that they were liable to compensate the respondent, Campbell, for an injury sustained during the course of his employment. The dispute involved a claim under the Workers Compensation Act 1987, specifically regarding the employer's liability for compensation due to the employee's injury, and whether the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The Court of Appeal was tasked with deciding whether the Arbitrator correctly interpreted and applied the relevant sections of the Act.

The primary legal issues in the case were whether the injury sustained by the employee, Campbell, was an injury in the course of employment as defined by section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and if so, whether the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury under section 9A of the Act. Additionally, the court considered whether Campbell's misconduct or the nature of his injury warranted a reduction in compensation under section 14(2) of the Act. The Court of Appeal examined the evidence presented and the Arbitrator's findings to determine the correctness of the Arbitrator's decision.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the Arbitrator's determination, holding that the injury was indeed in the course of employment and that the employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The court found that the Arbitrator had properly interpreted and applied the relevant sections of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court also dismissed the employer's argument that Campbell's misconduct or the nature of his injury warranted a reduction in compensation. The Court of Appeal thus upheld the Arbitrator's decision and ordered that the employer pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. For the reasons given in this decision the Arbitrator’s determination of 17 October 2011 is confirmed.

2. Appellant is to pay the costs of this 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.