Williams v Dendy Cinemas Newtown - [2023] NSWPIC 675

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Williams v Dendy Cinemas Newtown [2023] NSWPIC 675
APPLICANT:	Steven Williams
RESPONDENT:	Dendy Cinemas Newtown
MEMBER:	John Turner
DATE OF DECISION:	14 December 2023
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; the applicant received a negative reaction to a public post which he made on Facebook; the negative reaction included public Facebook posts that were viewed by co-workers; those making negative comments included a current manager employed by the respondent and a former employee of the respondent; the Facebook posts were not related to the applicant’s employment with the respondent; the applicant was at home when the posts were made and not in the course of his employment; the applicant sustained injury whilst at home and prior to attending his schedule work shift with the respondent; the applicant alleged that he sustained psychological due to his anxiety and concern as to the impact of his Facebook post and the response he received to the post on his work relationships and work environment as well as his ability to perform his work duties as a manager; issues included sections 4 ‘arising out of or in the course of employment’; section 9A ‘substantial contributing factor’; Smith v Australian Woollen Mills, Tarry v Warringah Shire Council, South Maitland Railways Pty Ltd v James, Craske v Wigan, Qantas Airways Ltd v Watson, Nunan v Cockatoo Island Docks & Engineering Co Ltd, Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Limited trading as Commander Australia Pty Limited, Zinc Corporation Ltd and another v Scarce, Dayton v Coles Supermarkets Pty Ltd, McMahon v Lagana, Rootsey v Tiger Nominees Pty Ltd, and Mercer v ANZ Banking Corporation considered and applied; Held – applicant’s psychological injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment as required by section 4; applicant has not sustained an “injury” as defined by section 4; applicant’s employment with the respondent was not a substantial contributing factor to his psychological injury as required by section 9A.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. That the applicant’s psychological injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment as required by s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 2. That the applicant has not sustained an “injury” as defined by s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 3. That the applicant’s employment with the respondent was not a substantial contributing factor to his psychological injury as required by s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The Commission orders: 4. There is an award for the respondent in respect to the applicant’s claim.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Steven Williams, the applicant, was at all relevant times employed by Dendy Cinemas Newtown, the respondent, as a Duty Manager.

The applicant alleges that he suffered a psychological injury on 6 February 2023 due to being bullied and harassed by management.
The applicant seeks weekly compensation for the period from…

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 Williams v Dendy Cinemas Newtown 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: [2023] NSWPIC 675
Decision Date: 14 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in Williams v Dendy Cinemas Newtown sought workers compensation for psychological injury following a negative reaction to a public Facebook post he made. The post, made at home and unrelated to his employment, prompted responses from co-workers, including a current manager and a former employee. The applicant alleged that the responses caused anxiety and concern about his work relationships, environment, and ability to perform his duties. The court was required to determine whether the applicant’s psychological injury arose out of or in the course of his employment, as required by section 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. Additionally, the court needed to consider if the applicant’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury, as outlined in section 9A.

The court examined various cases to assess if the applicant’s psychological injury met the criteria for compensation. It considered precedents such as Smith v Australian Woollen Mills, Tarry v Warringah Shire Council, and Qantas Airways Ltd v Watson, among others. The court concluded that the applicant’s psychological injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment, nor was his employment a substantial contributing factor. The court found that the Facebook post and the subsequent reactions were unrelated to the applicant’s employment, and the injury occurred prior to his scheduled work shift. The applicant’s anxiety and concerns were not linked to his employment or work environment.

The decision in Williams v Dendy Cinemas Newtown held that the applicant’s psychological injury did not qualify for workers compensation under the Act. The court found that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment and that the applicant’s employment was not a substantial contributing factor to the injury. The applicant was not entitled to compensation for the psychological injury sustained.

Orders