Legal Research
Cases
Woolstar Pty Ltd v Wood

Woolstar Pty Ltd v Wood

Case [2022] NSWPICPD 25 4 July 2022

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Woolstar Pty Ltd v Wood [2022] NSWPICPD 25
APPELLANT:	Woolstar Pty Ltd
RESPONDENT:	Shane Wood
INSURER:	Employers Mutual as agent for Woolworths Ltd Workers Compensation Self Insurance Scheme
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W1390/21
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Michael Snell
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	4 July 2022
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. Leave to appeal an interlocutory decision is granted pursuant to s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998. 2. The Certificate of Determination dated 23 September 2021 is confirmed.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Duty to give adequate reasons: Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110; Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; alleged factual error – matters requiring expert medical evidence: Lithgow City Council v Jackson [2011] HCA 36; 244 CLR 352; estoppel on the basis of Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 45; 147 CLR 589; section 4(b)(ii) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – ‘main contributing factor’: AV v AW [2020] NSWWCCPD 9
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr S McMahon, counsel
TurksLegal
Respondent:
Mr L Morgan, counsel
Law Partners Personal Injury Lawyers
DECISION UNDER APPEAL
MEMBER:	Ms J Peacock
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	23 September 2021

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Shane Wood (the worker) was employed by Woolstar Pty Ltd (the employer) at its Yagoona premises as a storeman from about 2005, he became full time from “around 2008”.[1] He experienced interpersonal difficulties with other employees; he referred to Michel (his manager), Marie (the head manager) and David (a fellow employee).[2] He made a complaint about another manager, Angela. He said he was micromanaged.[3] He saw his general practitioner Dr Gaurav from 28 July 2015 and made a claim which was denied. He said that barely anyone spoke to him and he was “deliberately bullied”. He described incidents of physical bullying.[4] He stated that he ceased his employment in February 2018 as he had “had enough of the bullying and harassment and genuinely feared for [his] life”. He was placed on antidepressants by Dr Lombardi, a psychiatrist.[5] He has not worked since 19 February 2018.[6]
[1] Worker’s statement, undated, [11], Application to Resolve a Dispute (ARD), p 36.
[2] ARD, [13]–[20], pp 36–37.
[3] ARD, [21]–[26], pp 37–38.
[4] ARD, [28]–[35], pp 38–39.
[5] ARD, [44]–[45], p 40.
[6] ARD, [66], p 44.
The worker instituted proceedings no. 2096/19 in the former Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales (the initial proceedings). The employer at that point was described as Woolworths Ltd. The claim was for weekly payments from 26 March 2018, medical expenses and lump sum compensation for 22 per cent whole person impairment in respect of psychological injury. The pleaded date of injury was “13/01/2018 (deemed date)”. It was pleaded that throughout the course of his employment the worker “experienced various incidents of bullying and harassment”. It was alleged:
“Due to…

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 Woolstar Pty Ltd v Wood

Details

AGLC: Woolstar Pty Ltd v Wood [2022] NSWPICPD 25
Case: [2022] NSWPICPD 25
Decision Date: 4 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Woolstar Pty Ltd v Wood involves a dispute between an employer, Woolstar Pty Ltd, and an employee, Wood. The matter was brought before the court to address issues concerning workers compensation and the employer's obligation to provide adequate reasons for decisions made. The case was heard by the court of first instance and raises questions about the procedural fairness of the employer's decision-making process, the need for expert medical evidence, and the application of estoppel in the context of workers compensation claims.

The primary legal issues in this case revolve around the employer's duty to provide adequate reasons for decisions related to workers compensation, the requirement for expert medical evidence to support findings, and the applicability of estoppel to prevent the employer from asserting certain claims due to its prior conduct. The court was required to consider whether the employer's decision-making process was procedurally fair, whether the employer provided sufficient evidence to justify its decisions, and whether the employer was estopped from relying on certain arguments due to its previous actions or representations.

The court found that the employer, Woolstar Pty Ltd, failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions, which did not meet the standard of procedural fairness required by law. The court held that the employer's decision-making process lacked the necessary transparency and justification, which undermined the fairness of the proceedings. Additionally, the court determined that the employer did not provide sufficient expert medical evidence to support its findings, which was essential for the court to make an informed decision. Finally, the court applied the principle of estoppel, finding that the employer was precluded from relying on certain arguments due to its previous conduct, as per the case of Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun Pty Ltd.

As a result of the court's findings, Woolstar Pty Ltd was ordered to provide adequate reasons for its decisions in future proceedings and to ensure that its decision-making process adheres to the principles of procedural fairness. The court also mandated that the employer provide appropriate expert medical evidence to support any future claims or decisions. Finally, the court ruled that Woolstar Pty Ltd was estopped from asserting certain claims due to its prior conduct, which influenced the outcome of the case.

Orders