Woolnough v Target Australia Pty Ltd

WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:		Woolnough v Target Australia Pty Ltd [2008] NSWWCCPD 109
APPELLANT:		Christine Anne Woolnough
RESPONDENT:		Target Australia Pty Ltd
INSURER:		Coles Group Limited
FILE NUMBER:		WCC472-08
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION:		7 April 2008
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:		2 October 2008
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION:		Journey claim; whether the interruption / deviation materially increased the risk of injury; section 10(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:		Acting Deputy President Deborah Moore
HEARING:		On the papers
REPRESENTATION:		Appellant:	Everingham Solomons Solicitors
Respondent:	Lander & Rogers Lawyers
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:		1.    The decision of the Arbitrator dated 7 April 2008 is revoked. 2.    The matter is remitted to the Arbitrator at first instance for redetermination in accordance with these reasons. 3.    The Respondent is to pay the Applicants costs of the proceedings before the Arbitrator. 4.    The Respondent is to pay the Appellant’s costs of the Appeal

BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL

1. On 2 May 2008 Christine Anne Woolnough (‘the Appellant/Ms Woolnough’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision dated 7 April 2008.

1. The Respondent to the Appeal is Target Australia Pty Ltd (‘the Respondent /Target’).

1. Ms Woolnough was employed by Target in Port Macquarie as a customer services assistant / door greeter.

1. On 29 August 2007 she completed her shift at 2.30 pm as required. She drove from Target to her home making two stops: firstly, at the home of a friend Cheryl Vick (‘Cheryl’) to collect a quantity of eggs, and secondly, at the home of her friend Glanda Banks (‘Glanda’) to deliver some of the eggs.

1. Whilst returning to her car, which was parked in Glanda’s driveway, she tripped and fell injuring her right hand and wrist.

1. Ms Woolnough lodged a claim with Target’s insurer which was denied.

1. On 24 January 2008 she filed an ‘Application to Resolve a Dispute’ (‘Application’) in the Commission seeking weekly benefits compensation from 29 August 2007 to 15 February 2008.

1. The parties attended a conciliation / arbitration hearing on 10 March 2008 where Ms Woolnough gave brief oral evidence.

1. On 7 April 2008 a ‘Certificate of Determination’ with an accompanying ‘Statement of Reasons’ was issued wherein the Arbitrator made an award in favour of the Respondent, Target, on the grounds that “…the material risk of injury was increased because of the interruption or deviation to her journey…” such that section 10(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) operated to defeat the claim.

1. It is from this decision that Ms Woolnough seeks leave to appeal.

ON THE PAPERS REVIEW

1. Section 354(6) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (‘the 1998 Act’) provides:

(a)“(6)        If the Commission is satisfied that sufficient information has been supplied to it in connection with proceedings, the Commission may exercise functions under this Act without holding any conference or formal hearing.”

1. Having regard to…