Wood v Woolworths Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 71 min read
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Wood v Woolworths Limited [2020] NSWWCCPD 8
APPELLANT: Shane Wood
RESPONDENT: Woolworths Limited
INSURER: Employers Mutual Limited
FILE NUMBER: A1-2096/19
ARBITRATOR: Ms R Homan
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 5 August 2019
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 24 February 2020
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: A decision should be given on the basis of issues that have been litigated in the course of the trial – Chanaa v Zarour [2011] NSWCA 199, Popovic v Liverpool City Council [2017] NSWWCCPD 49 applied; the weight to be afforded to evidence is generally a matter within the province of the primary decision maker Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS [2010] HCA 16; 240 CLR 611; 84 ALJR 369; 266 ALR 367, Shellharbour City Council v Rigby [2006] NSWCA 308; requirement to identify facts relied upon – use of the phrase “nature and conditions”
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant:
Mr B McManamey, counsel
Law Partners Personal Injury Lawyers
Respondent:
Mr A J Parker, counsel
Turks Legal

ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.     The Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 5 August 2019 is confirmed.

INTRODUCTION

  1. Mr Shane Wood (the appellant) was employed by Woolworths Limited (the respondent) as a store person and cleaner, commencing in 2005. On or about 13 January 2018, the appellant lodged a workers compensation claim in respect of an alleged psychological injury, alleging such injury arose from bullying and harassment in the workplace. The respondent denied liability for the injury on 7 March 2018.

  2. On 27 August 2018, the appellant forwarded to the respondent a claim for weekly payments commencing from 26 March 2018, treatment expenses and a lump sum pursuant to s 66 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). On 16 October 2018, the respondent issued a notice pursuant to s 74 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) declining liability, disputing that:

    (a)    the appellant suffered a psychological injury pursuant to s 4(a) of the 1987 Act;

    (b)    the appellant’s employment was a main contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of the any psychological injury;

    (c)    the appellant’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to any injury in accordance with s 9A of the 1987 Act, and

    (d)    the appellant had any entitlement to weekly payments, treatment expenses or lump sums.

  3. The appellant commenced proceedings in the Commission, alleging “various incidents of bullying and harassment by his employer and manager” between 2012 and February 2018. The appellant alleged that he had suffered the gradual onset of a psychological injury “due to the nature and conditions of his employment” with a deemed date of injury being 13 January 2018.[1]

    [1] Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), Part 4 – Injury Details.

  4. The parties attended an arbitration on 1 July 2019. On that day, by consent, the deemed date of injury was amended to 26…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wood v Woolworths Limited 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
[2020] NSWWCCPD 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this case were Wood and Woolworths Limited. The dispute pertained to an arbitration decision regarding an employment matter, which was subsequently brought before the court. The case was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales. The legal issues the court was required to decide centred on the validity and enforceability of the arbitrator's certificate of determination. Specifically, the court had to assess whether the arbitrator's decision was made within their jurisdiction and if the process followed was appropriate.

The court examined the arguments put forward by both parties, focusing on the issues that had been litigated during the arbitration process. The court referenced previous cases such as Chanaa v Zarour and Popovic v Liverpool City Council to underscore the principle that decisions should be made based on the issues that have been contested in the course of the trial. Additionally, the court considered the appropriate weight to be given to evidence, noting that this is generally within the purview of the primary decision maker. The court also referenced Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS and Shellharbour City Council v Rigby to reinforce the point that the identification of facts relied upon is crucial and must be clearly articulated.

In its reasoning, the court concluded that the Arbitrator's Certificate of Determination dated 5 August 2019 was valid and enforceable. The court found that the arbitrator had correctly identified the facts and had acted within their jurisdiction. The court confirmed the Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination, thus finalising the matter.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Arbitrator’s Certificate of Determination dated 5 August 2019 is confirmed.

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.