Wren v Charles Sturt University - [2024] NSWPIC 484

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Wren v Charles Sturt University [2024] NSWPIC 484
APPLICANT:	Alison Wren
RESPONDENT:	Charles Sturt University
MEMBER:	Michael Moore
DATE OF DECISION:	2 September 2024
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987 (1987 Act); respondent denied liability for payment of compensation for reasons including that the applicant had recovered damages within the meaning of section 151A(1) of the 1987 Act when she settled a claim for adverse action in Fair Work proceedings; Gardiner v O’Rourke Constructions Pty Ltd considered; Adams v Fletcher International considered and distinguished; Held – the settlement of the Fair Work proceedings was compensation received under an independent statutory scheme; the applicant was not precluded from bringing her claim for workers compensation benefits; matter referred to further preliminary conference to deal with balance of claim.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The applicant is not precluded from bringing her claim for workers’ compensation benefits because she has received damages within the meaning of s 151A (1) of the WorkersCompensation Act 1987 but rather had settled her rights under an independent statutory scheme when she entered into a deed of release to settle her claim under the Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) against the respondent and another. 2. The matter is to be re-listed for a further preliminary conference to deal with the balance of the claim.

STATEMENT OF REASONS

BACKGROUND

In this matter the applicant Alison Wren is seeking an award of weekly compensation under ss 36,37 and 38 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), lump sum compensation under s 66 of the 1987 Act and payment of medical, hospital and related expenses under s 60 of the 1987 Act.
The applicant was employed by the respondent as an Associate Lecturer in Policing Studies at the Police Academy at Goulburn New South Wales having commenced work for the respondent in approximately April 2014.
It appears that the applicant’s initial appointment was for a part-time position equating to 60% of a full-time position presumably in terms of hours worked and income earned.
The applicant apparently conducted her work as a lecturer online as all teaching courses at the Police Academy were taught in that fashion.
In late 2014 the applicant was involved in a family separation and associated Family Court proceedings that resulted in the applicant having custody of her then eight-year-old son.
It appears that at times the applicant was allowed to work from home to enable her to deal with her childcare responsibilities but that the respondent ultimately would not allow that situation to continue.
The applicant alleges that due to her parental responsibilities the respondent did not allow her career to develop but rather treated her as a “stop-gap” resource to fill in staffing needs.
The applicant further alleges that her work hours were often altered, on many occasions on short notice.
The applicant states that in 2019 she was told that she was to be moved sideways to another department and then…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Wren v Charles Sturt University 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: [2024] NSWPIC 484
Decision Date: 2 September 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Wren v Charles Sturt University, the applicant, Ms Wren, sought workers' compensation benefits from the university following an injury sustained during her employment. The university denied liability for compensation, asserting that Ms Wren had previously recovered damages from a separate claim under the Fair Work Act, which they argued precluded her from seeking further compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). The central legal issue for the court was whether the settlement of the Fair Work claim constituted compensation within the meaning of section 151A(1) of the 1987 Act, thereby barring Ms Wren's workers' compensation claim.

The court considered the relevant legislative framework and case law to determine the scope of compensation received under an independent statutory scheme. It referenced Gardiner v O’Rourke Constructions Pty Ltd and Adams v Fletcher International to analyse the applicability of prior settlements to subsequent compensation claims. The court concluded that the settlement of the Fair Work claim was compensation under an independent statutory scheme, as defined by section 151A(1) of the 1987 Act. However, this prior compensation did not preclude Ms Wren from claiming workers' compensation benefits, as the Fair Work Act and the 1987 Act operated in distinct legal spheres. Consequently, the court held that Ms Wren was not precluded from pursuing her workers' compensation claim.

The matter was referred back to a further preliminary conference to address the remaining aspects of Ms Wren's claim for workers' compensation benefits. The court's decision clarified the interaction between compensation received under different statutory schemes and provided guidance on the circumstances in which prior settlements may or may not bar subsequent compensation claims. The final orders of the court will follow the outcome of the further preliminary conference.

Orders