Legal Research
Cases
Woolworths Group Limited v Moriarty

Woolworths Group Limited v Moriarty

Case [2025] NSWPICPD 64 8 September 2025

Type to search within this case.

DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY A MEMBER
CITATION:	Woolworths Group Limited v Moriarty [2025] NSWPICPD 64
APPELLANT:	Woolworths Group Limited
RESPONDENT:	Timothy Moriarty
INSURER:	Self-insured
FILE NUMBER:	A1-W4087/24
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER:	Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:	8 September 2025
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:	1. Leave to appeal the interlocutory decision dated 29 November 2024 pursuant to s 352(3A) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 is granted. 2. The determination that the respondent suffered a work-related injury on 11 May 2016 is confirmed. 3. Award for the appellant in respect of the allegation that the injury on 13 August 2017 resulted from the injury on 11 May 2016. 4. The respondent’s employment was a substantial contributing factor to the injury on 11 May 2016. 5. The referral to a Medical Assessor dated 29 November 2024 for assessment of the respondent’s whole person impairment is revoked. 6. The Matter is remitted to a different member for determination as to whether the seizures after 11 May 2016 result from the injury on 11 May 2016.
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION – Section 352(5) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the 1998 Act) – the correct approach to be adopted on appeal in determining allegations of factual error – State of New South Wales v Culhana [2025] NSWCA 157; Warren v Coombes [1979] HCA 9; Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22 considered and applied – section 294 of the 1998 Act; Rule 78 of the Personal Injury Commission Rules 2021 – adequacy of reasons – Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW (1997) 48 NSWLR 430; Mifsud v Campbell (1991) 21 NSWLR 725; Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 110; Ming v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2022] NSWCA 209; Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247; Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Liang [1996] HCA 6 considered and applied – inferential findings – Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; Luxton v Vines [1952] HCA 19; Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8 considered and applied – section 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 – whether employment a substantial contributing factor to the injury – Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Ltd t/as Commander Australia Pty Ltd [2009] NSWCA 324 applied
HEARING:	On the papers
REPRESENTATION:	Appellant:
Mr B Jones, counsel
BBW Lawyers
Respondent:
Ms E Grotte, counsel
Somerville Laundry Lomax Solicitors
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Moriarty v Woolworths Group Limited W4087/24, 29 November 2024
MEMBER:	Mr M McGrowdie
DATE OF MEMBER’S DECISION:	29 November 2024

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Mr Timothy Moriarty (the respondent) was employed by Woolworths Group Limited (the appellant) as a butcher. On 11 May 2016, in the course of his employment, the respondent was stacking frozen chickens and chicken products that were stored in the cold room in boxes on trolleys into the public fridges and freezers. The respondent…

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 Woolworths Group Limited v Moriarty

Details

AGLC: Woolworths Group Limited v Moriarty [2025] NSWPICPD 64
Case: [2025] NSWPICPD 64
Decision Date: 8 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Group Limited appealed against a decision of the Personal Injury Commission concerning the validity of a claim for workers' compensation made by Moriarty. The dispute centered around whether Moriarty's employment with Woolworths Group Limited was a substantial contributing factor to an injury he sustained, and if so, whether Woolworths Group Limited was liable for compensation. The matter was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

The court was required to determine the correct approach to be adopted on appeal in assessing allegations of factual error, particularly in relation to the adequacy of reasons provided by the Personal Injury Commission. It also needed to consider whether the Commission had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions, including section 294 and section 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and whether the inferential findings made by the Commission were supported by the evidence.

In reaching its decision, the court considered a number of precedents, including State of New South Wales v Culhana, Warren v Coombes, and Fox v Percy, which informed the approach to factual error and the weight to be given to inferential findings. The court found that the Personal Injury Commission had failed to adequately address the evidence and make clear findings on the key issues. The Commission's reasons were deemed insufficient under the principles established in Beale v Government Insurance Office of NSW, Mifsud v Campbell, Pollard v RRR Corporation Pty Ltd, and Soulemezis v Dudley. The court also noted that the Commission had not properly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had overlooked some of the evidence.

As a result, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the decision of the Personal Injury Commission, and remitted the matter back to the Commission for rehearing. The court ordered that the Personal Injury Commission reconsider the evidence and make fresh findings on the key issues, ensuring that its reasons adequately addressed the evidence and the applicable legal principles.

Orders