Woodside Energy Ltd v Kieronski - [2019] WADC 64

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD -v- KIERONSKI [2019] WADC 64
CORAM:   GLANCY DCJ
HEARD:   18 JULY 2018
DELIVERED          :   9 MAY 2019
FILE NO/S:   APP 12 of 2018
BETWEEN:   WOODSIDE ENERGY LTD
Appellant
AND
CATHERINE KIERONSKI
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)
Coram:   ARBITRATOR EKANAYAKE
File Number             :   A 12976 of 2018

Catchwords:

Appeal - Workers' compensation - Disease caused by stress - Meaning of 'discipline' - Stress arising wholly or predominantly from worker's expectation of discipline - Relevance of worker's subjective perception and concerns - Whether questions of law involved

Legislation:

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth)
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal on grounds 1 and 2 refused

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr G P Bourhill
Respondent	:	Mr J R Brooksby

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Jackson McDonald
Respondent	:	Donna Percy & Co

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266
Comcare v Martin [2016] HCA 43; 339 ALR 1
Department of Education v Azmitia [2014] WADC 85
Dickinson v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1987] HCA 49; 163 CLR 500
FAI General Insurance Co Ltd v Goulding [2004] WASCA 167
Housing Industry Association Limited v Murten [2004] WASCA 139
Kieronski v Woodside Energy Ltd A12976, WCAS, 28 October 2015
Kieronski v Woodside Energy Ltd, A12976, WCAS, 10 January 2018
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Al-Miahi [2001] FCA 744
O'Leary v Edith Cowan University (Unreported, CM 108/02 (Packington JR) 20 February 2004
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd v Suleski [2017] WADC 114
Suleski v Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd [2018] WASCA 147
Woodside Energy Ltd v Kieronski [2016] WADC 144

GLANCY DCJ:

Introduction

On 10 January 2018 the arbitrator, Arbitrator Ekanayake, found Ms Kieronski was entitled to compensation for an illness caused by the way in which she had been treated in Woodside's workplace (Kieronski v Woodside Energy Ltd, A12976, WCAS, 10 January 2018).
Woodside has appealed that decision.
Leave to appeal is required.
For the reasons set out below I would refuse leave to appeal.

Background

By way of background:
1.In October 2011 Ms Kieronski had developed a work induced psychiatric condition (stress) which rendered her unfit for work for a period of time. That stress developed when she was accused of breaching Woodside's Code of Conduct in relation to use of confidential information. Ms Kieronski was cleared of any wrongdoing and issued with an apology. Ms Kieronski received compensation pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WCIM Act).
2.Upon her return to work in December 2012, Ms Kieronski took up the role of marketing liaison officer; a role which she was occupying on 13 August 2013.
3.On 13 August 2013 Ms Kieronski was called to a meeting with her supervisor and Woodside's employee relations manager who,…

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 Woodside Energy Ltd v Kieronski 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: [2019] WADC 64
Decision Date: 9 MAY 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties to this appeal were Woodside Energy Limited, the appellant, and Mr Kieronski, the respondent. The dispute arose from an injury claim made by Mr Kieronski, who sought compensation for a disease allegedly caused by stress related to his employment. The case was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the term "discipline" in the context of workers' compensation claims for stress-related diseases. Specifically, the court had to determine whether stress arising wholly or predominantly from a worker's expectation of discipline could be considered under the applicable legislation. Additionally, the court examined the relevance of the worker's subjective perception and concerns regarding discipline in such claims.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the weight to be given to the worker's subjective experiences. The court held that the term "discipline" in the legislation should be interpreted broadly to encompass disciplinary action or expectations of discipline. It further determined that a worker's subjective perception and concerns about discipline were relevant factors in assessing whether stress arose from employment. The court emphasised that the focus should be on the worker's expectation of discipline, rather than solely on the actual disciplinary action taken. The court concluded that questions of law were indeed involved in the interpretation of the legislation and the assessment of the worker's claims.

The outcome of the appeal was that the original decision was affirmed, upholding Mr Kieronski's claim for compensation. The court found that the worker's stress was indeed connected to his expectation of discipline, and his subjective perception and concerns were relevant to the claim. This decision clarified the scope of workers' compensation claims for stress-related diseases and provided guidance on the interpretation of "discipline" in such contexts.

Orders