West v Australian Catholic University Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 381

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	West v Australian Catholic University Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 381
APPLICANT:	Jye West
RESPONDENT:	Australian Catholic University Limited
MEMBER:	Anne Gracie
DATE OF DECISION:	6 August 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; claim for psychological injury; claim for weekly compensation, treatment expenses pursuant to section 60 and lump sum compensation pursuant to section 66; consideration of injury and causation; notice; whether the respondent can establish (pursuant to section 11A) that the applicant's injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken or proposed to be taken by it with respect to discipline and/or provision (withdrawal of) employment benefits; whether a determination can be made in relation to section 66 entitlements or should be referred to a Medical Assessor (MA); whether the applicant is entitled to reasonably necessary medical and treatment expenses; State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Fritzi Chemler, Attorney General v K, Kendall v Woollahra Municipal Council, Sedat Boga v Carpet Call (VIC) Pty Ltd t/as Carpet Call, Kooragang Cement Pty Limited v Bates, Jaffarie v Quality Castings Pty Ltd, and Haddad v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd considered; Held – the applicant sustained a psychological injury in accordance with section 4(b)(i); the respondent failed to establish that the applicant’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken; matter referred to the President for referral to a MA.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. As a result of events occurring in the course of his employment between 3 July 2023 and 28 July 2023 with the respondent, the applicant has sustained a psychological injury pursuant to s 4(b)(i) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). At that time, the applicant was a worker employed by the respondent. 2. The applicant has established that special circumstances exist pursuant to s 254 (3) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) excusing the applicant from the obligation to give notice of injury as soon as possible after the injury. 3. 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 with respect to discipline and/or provision of employment benefits pursuant to s 11A of the 1987 Act. 4. The applicant’s employment with the respondent was a substantial contributing factor to his psychological injury in accordance with s 9A of the 1987 Act. 5. The applicant’s employment with the respondent is the main contributing factor to the injury in accordance with s 4(b)(i) of the 1987 Act. 6. The respondent is to pay the applicant’s reasonably necessary medical or related expenses in the sum of $3,800.20 pursuant to s 60 of the 1987 Act on production of invoices, receipts and/or Medicare notice of charge. 7. Pursuant to s 15(1)(a)(i) of the 1987 Act and the decision of Haddad v The GEO Group Australia Pty Ltd [2024] NSWCA 135

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 West v Australian Catholic University 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: [2025] NSWPIC 381
Decision Date: 6 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of West v Australian Catholic University Ltd, the applicant, West, sought compensation for a psychological injury sustained during his employment with the respondent, Australian Catholic University Ltd. The dispute was adjudicated in the District Court of New South Wales. West claimed weekly compensation, treatment expenses under section 60, and lump sum compensation under section 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court was tasked with determining the validity of the claim, the causation of the psychological injury, and whether the respondent could establish that the injury was caused by reasonable actions taken in relation to discipline or the provision of employment benefits under section 11A of the Act.

The primary legal issues involved assessing whether West's psychological injury qualified under section 4(b)(i) of the Act and whether the respondent could demonstrate that the injury was predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken concerning discipline or employment benefits. Additionally, the court had to decide if the matter should be referred to a Medical Assessor for further evaluation of West's entitlement to section 66 benefits and whether he was entitled to the claimed medical and treatment expenses.

The court found that West had sustained a psychological injury in line with the Act's definition. It was established that the respondent had failed to prove that West's injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable actions taken in relation to discipline or employment benefits. Consequently, the matter was referred to the President of the District Court for referral to a Medical Assessor to further determine West's entitlement to section 66 benefits. The court also noted that the issue of treatment expenses would be subject to the Medical Assessor's determination.

Orders