Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer v Howard

The Workers Compensation Nominal Insurer was the appellant in a dispute against the respondent, who had claimed workers compensation for deafness caused by exposure to loud noise during his employment. The case was heard by the New South Wales Dust Diseases Tribunal, specifically by an arbitrator who had previously determined in favour of the worker. The insurer appealed the decision, arguing that the worker's employer was no longer registered, and that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the worker was covered by a workers compensation policy at the time of the injury. The worker argued that he did not need to prove the employer was registered, and that the employer's deregistration did not affect his claim.

The central legal issues for the court were whether the employer's deregistration impacted the worker's ability to claim workers compensation, and whether the worker needed to prove that the employer had a workers compensation policy in place. The court considered sections 140 and 142B of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, which deal with the employer's duty to insure against workers compensation claims, and the worker's right to claim compensation regardless of the employer's registration status. The court also needed to determine whether the worker had provided sufficient evidence to prove that his employment involved exposure to loud noise, which is a necessary condition for a claim of boilermaker’s deafness.

The court found that the worker's claim was not affected by the employer's deregistration, as the provisions of the Act provide that workers compensation claims can still be made even if the employer is not registered. The court held that the worker did not need to prove that the employer had a workers compensation policy in place, as the Act imposes a duty on the employer to insure against workers compensation claims, not on the worker to prove insurance. The court also found that the worker had provided sufficient evidence to prove that his employment involved exposure to loud noise, satisfying the necessary condition for a claim of boilermaker’s deafness. The court confirmed the Arbitrator’s determination in favour of the worker and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal.