Woolley v Manildra Laboratories Pty Ltd - [2021] NSWPIC 160

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Woolley v Manildra Laboratories Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 160
APPLICANT:	Susan Woolley
RESPONDENT:	Manildra Laboratories Pty Ltd
PRINCIPAL MEMBER:	Josephine Bamber
DATE OF DECISION:	2 June 2021
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION- Agreed work related psychological injury; claim for lump sum compensation; respondent disputed liability to pay compensation pursuant to section 11A of the 1987 Act; Held- respondent has not discharged its onus of proof to establish the injury was wholly or predominantly as a result of discipline or dismissal; in the alternative, a finding was made that the employer’s conduct was not reasonable.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	1. The Application to Resolve a Dispute is amended to delete the date of injury of 28 February 2018 where ever it appears and instead insert 6 November 2019 as the deemed date of injury. 2. The respondent has not established a defence under section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. 3. The lump sum compensation claim is remitted to the President for referral to a Medical Assessor to assess permanent impairment for psychological injury with a date of injury of 6 November 2019 (date of lump sum claim). 4. The documents to be referred to the Medical Assessor are to include the following: a. Application to Resolve a Dispute and attached documents; b. Reply and attached documents, and c. Application to Admit Late Documents filed by the respondent dated 25 February 2021.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

Susan Woolley, the applicant, was employed by the respondent, Manildra Laboratories Pty Ltd as a Quality Assurance Officer from October 1995 until her resignation on 30 April 2018. It is accepted that she developed a work-related psychological injury in the course of her employment with the respondent.
The respondent’s workers compensation insurer, in notices dated 7 September 2018[1] and 2 January 2020[2] issued pursuant to section 78 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act), disputed liability to pay compensation based upon section 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), asserting that Ms Woolley’s psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action taken by the employer with respect to discipline and dismissal[3].
[1] ARD p 21.
[2] ARD p 26.
[3] The notices also refer to “retrenchment” but that was not pursued at the hearing.
The claim for compensation in these proceedings is confined to lump sum compensation. The date of injury stated in the Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD) is 28 February 2018, however at the outset of the arbitration hearing Ms Woolley’s counsel amended the date of injury to the date of the lump sum compensation claim, being 6 November 2019[4]. The respondent agreed to the amendment.
[4] T9.

PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COMMISSION

The matter was listed for conciliation conference/arbitration hearing on 4 March 2021. Mr Stuart Moffet, counsel, instructed by Mr Martin Rowney, solicitor, appeared for Ms Woolley, who was present. The respondent was represented by Ms Lyn Goodman, counsel, instructed by Ms Christie Blake, solicitor,…

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.

Continue reading Woolley v Manildra Laboratories Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Woolley v Manildra Laboratories Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPIC 160
Case: [2021] NSWPIC 160
Decision Date: 2 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woolley v Manildra Laboratories Pty Ltd involved the claimant seeking compensation for a work-related psychological injury. The dispute centred around the employer's refusal to acknowledge liability for the psychological injury under section 11A of the 1987 Act. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The claimant argued that the employer had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the psychological injury, while the employer maintained that the injury was wholly or predominantly the result of disciplinary action or dismissal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the employer had discharged the onus of proving that the psychological injury was wholly or predominantly due to discipline or dismissal. Additionally, the court had to determine if the employer's conduct was reasonable in preventing the psychological injury. The court found that the employer had not met its burden of proof regarding the nature of the injury's causation, and in the alternative, the employer's conduct was deemed unreasonable.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the evidence and circumstances surrounding the claimant's psychological injury. It was determined that the employer had not adequately established that the injury was wholly or predominantly caused by discipline or dismissal. Furthermore, the employer's actions were found to be unreasonable, thereby failing to prevent the psychological injury. The court concluded that the employer was liable to pay compensation to the claimant for the work-related psychological injury. The final orders of the court directed the employer to pay the claimant a lump sum compensation for the injury sustained.

Orders