WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION:Woolworths Limited v Alali [2006] NSWWCCPD 174
APPELLANT: Woolworths Limited
RESPONDENT: Layth Alali
INSURER:Woolworths Limited
FILE NUMBER: WCC2839-05
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 29 August 2005
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 2 August 2005
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Section 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987; concurrent employment; incapacity and the adequacy of reasons.
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Acting Deputy President Elizabeth Tydd
HEARING:Determined on the Papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Bartier Perry
Respondent: Teakle, Ormsby, Conn
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the Arbitrator’s decision dated 29 August 2005 are revoked and the following orders made in their place:
“The amount of weekly compensation pursuant to section 40 Workers Compensation Act 1987 and refund of overpayments pursuant to section 58 of the 1987 Act are remitted to another Arbitrator under section 352(7) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 for conciliation or determination if the parties are unable to come to a settlement in accordance with the findings contained in this decision.
A copy of this decision is to be served on Perfection Fresh who is to be given the opportunity to make further submissions on remitter as they relate to the issue of overpayment in accordance with section 58 of the 1987 Act.”
Order number 4 of the Arbitrator’s decision dated 29 August 2004 is confirmed.
No order as to costs of the Appeal.
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
Employment and injuries
From 15 October 2000 until 2 July 2004 Mr Layth Alali (‘Mr Alali’) was concurrently employed as a store man by both Perfection Fresh Pty Limited (‘Perfection Fresh’) and Woolworths Limited (‘Woolworths’). Mr Alali worked 40 hours per week with Perfection Fresh and 29 hours per week with Woolworths.
Between March 2001 and June 2004 Mr Alali sustained three injuries relevant to these proceedings. These injuries are summarised as follows:
· on 27 March 2001 Mr Alali was driving a forklift for Woolworths when the brakes failed and he sustained a crush fracture to his left ankle. Mr Alali was totally incapacitated for work until July 2001 when he returned to modified duties with Woolworths and Perfection Fresh.
· in March 2002 Mr Alali was taking the door off a forklift for Woolworths and developed low back pain. Mr Alali was totally incapacitated for a period of three weeks. He then returned to modified duties with Woolworths and Perfection Fresh.
· on 28 June 2004 Mr Alali was diagnosed with an undisplaced spiral fracture of his right fifth toe. Mr Alali claimed that this injury developed as a result of his left ankle injury which caused him to place most of his weight on his right foot. Mr Alali took three weeks off work using accrued leave and following that period returned to modified duties with Woolworths. Upon his return to work with Perfection Fresh, Mr Alali was required to provide certification that he was fit for…
Continue reading Woolworths Limited v Alali
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Woolworths Limited v Alali [2006] NSWWCCPD 174
- Case
- [2006] NSWWCCPD 174
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Acting Deputy President, Elizabeth Tydd, found that while the Arbitrator correctly identified the incapacity arising from Mr Alali's left ankle injury, there were errors in the application of section 40(2)(b) of the 1987 Act and inadequate reasons for the award. The Arbitrator had erroneously placed a "ceiling" on the number of hours Mr Alali could work in suitable employment, a finding unsupported by the evidence. Additionally, the reasons for the award did not adequately explain the basis for the Arbitrator's decision, particularly regarding the calculation of Mr Alali's potential earnings.
Consequently, the Acting Deputy President revoked the Arbitrator’s orders regarding weekly compensation and the refund of overpayments, remitting the matter to another Arbitrator for conciliation or determination. The Acting Deputy President also confirmed the Arbitrator's order that Mr Alali pay Woolworths' costs as agreed or assessed. No order was made regarding the costs of the appeal itself. The decision highlighted the necessity for Arbitrators to carefully consider all relevant evidence and provide clear and adequate reasons for their findings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.