Woolworths Limited v Waterhouse

Link copied
Case Copied 55 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Woolworths Limited v Waterhouse and Anor [2008] NSWWCCPD 131
APPELLANT: Woolworths Limited
FIRST RESPONDENT: Renee Kathleen Waterhouse
SECOND RESPONDENT Woolworths Limited (in its capacity as self insurer)
INSURERS:

1. CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited Agent for the NSW WorkCover Scheme (on risk from 31 October 1990 to 30 October 1999)

2. QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (on risk from 31 October 1999 to 31 October 2000)

FILE NUMBER: WCC2550-08
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 15 July 2008
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION:  4 November 2008
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Whether decision supported by the evidence; relevance; reasons for decision; weight of medical evidence; causation and liability; section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Gary Byron
HEARING: Determined on the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Sparke Helmore
First Respondent: Monaco Solicitors
Second Respondent:  Bartier Perry
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: The decision of the Arbitrator dated 15 July 2008 is confirmed
The Appellant is to pay the costs of the appeal of the First Respondent and the Second Respondent

BACKGROUND

  1. On 12 August 2008 Woolworths Limited (‘Woolworths/the Appellant’) sought leave to bring an ‘Appeal Against Decision of Arbitrator’ in the Workers Compensation Commission (‘the Commission’) against a decision, dated 15 July 2008.

  1. The First Respondent to the Appeal is Ms Renee Kathleen Waterhouse (‘Ms Waterhouse/the First Respondent’).  The Second Respondent in the appeal is Woolworths Limited (in its capacity as self insurer) (‘Second Respondent’).

  1. The Appellant’s Insurer and “lead agent” in the matter was/is CGU Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited, Agent for the NSW WorkCover Scheme (on risk from 31 October 1990 to 30 October 1999) and QBE Workers Compensation (NSW) Limited (on risk from 31 October 1999 to 31 October 2000).  Woolworths became a self-insurer after 31 October 2000.

  1. Ms Waterhouse commenced employment with Woolworths on 24 July 1994 as a part time delicatessen assistant.  In December 1996 she commenced working full time as a trainee delicatessen manager and became a delicatessen manager some time in 1999 at Woolworths, Carlingford.

  1. On 20 May 1999 Ms Waterhouse claims that she suffered an injury to her back while lifting a box of chickens at her place of employment.  She reported the accident and consulted her General Practitioner Dr McKenzie who sent her for x-rays and provided her with a medical certificate.  Ms Waterhouse recorded in her unsigned statement dated 21 February 2008, that she returned to work after two days off.  However, her back remained sore and she was “forced to take painkillers to continue working”.

  1. Ms Waterhouse also stated that after the injury she continued to move stock regularly in the course of her employment with Woolworths, and that she found this frequently caused her to experience episodes of back pain.  As a result she received chiropractic treatment from Mr Alfred Deffert in order to obtain some temporary relief.

  1. On July 2000 Ms Waterhouse was lifting twenty kilo tubs of chickens at work, when she…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woolworths Limited v Waterhouse and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] NSWWCCPD 131
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Woolworths Limited brought an application to the District Court of New South Wales, challenging a decision of an Arbitrator that found the company liable for an injury sustained by a former employee, Ms Waterhouse. The dispute centred on whether Woolworths was liable for Ms Waterhouse's injury, which arose from a slip and fall incident at work, and the appropriate compensation to be awarded. The Arbitrator had ruled in favour of Ms Waterhouse, awarding her damages for the injury and loss of earnings.

The legal issues before the court included whether the Arbitrator's decision was supported by the evidence, whether the Arbitrator had considered all relevant evidence, and whether the weight of the medical evidence justified the Arbitrator's findings on causation and liability. The court also needed to consider whether the decision was in accordance with section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which outlines the circumstances in which an injury is deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment.

The District Court found that the Arbitrator's decision was supported by the evidence and was in accordance with section 60 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The court held that the Arbitrator had considered all relevant evidence, including the medical evidence, and had provided adequate reasons for their decision. The court found that the weight of the medical evidence was sufficient to establish causation and liability. The District Court confirmed the Arbitrator's decision, including the award of damages to Ms Waterhouse.

Orders

Orders of the court

The decision of the Arbitrator dated 15 July 2008 is confirmed

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.