Wright v Findex (Aust) Pty Ltd - [2025] NSWPIC 113

CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION OF MEMBER
CITATION:	Wright v Findex (Aust) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 113
APPLICANT:	Guy Wright
RESPONDENT:	Findex (Aust) Pty Ltd
MEMBER:	Cameron Burge
DATE OF DECISION:	26 March 2025
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION - Workers Compensation Act 1987; weekly compensation and medical expenses; whether the applicant’s accepted psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the reasonable actions of the respondent with respect to performance appraisal and/ or discipline; the fact of the applicant’s injury is not in issue; the respondent alleges it was caused by reasonable actions and relies on section 11A; Held – when examining question of causation a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain must be undertaken; Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates followed; the defence under section 11A is two-pronged; the conduct relied on must not only be the whole or predominant cause of the injury at issue and it must also be reasonable; the reasonableness or otherwise of the conduct relied on is an objective matter to be decided having regards to what was appropriate in the circumstances; balancing the consequences of the conduct relied on against the reasons given for it; Ritchie v Department of Community Services applied; when having regard to the reasonableness of any conduct relied on the manner and timing of the conduct together with its outcome must be considered; Ivanisevic v Laudet Pty Ltd (unreported 24 November 1998 per Truss CCJ); the evidence discloses the applicant was subjected to ridicule and being addressed in an angry manner by his manager at a virtual meeting in front of several colleagues; in the circumstances, the conduct relied on by the respondent was not reasonable and the defence under section 11A must therefore fail; capacity for employment; assessment of the applicant’s assessment after a period of total incapacity; finding the applicant has capacity for employment on restricted hours and duties at a residual rate; respondent ordered to pay applicant weekly compensation and medical expenses.
DETERMINATIONS MADE:	The Commission determines: 1. The claim for permanent impairment compensation is discontinued. 2. The applicant suffered a psychological injury in the course of his employment with the respondent, with a deemed date of injury of 12 June 2023. 3. The applicant’s injury was not wholly or predominantly caused by the reasonable actions of the respondent with respect to discipline and/or performance appraisal. 4. At the time of his injury, the applicant’s pre-injury average weekly earnings exceeded the statutory maximum pursuant to s 34(1) Workers Compensation Act1987, as indexed from time to time. 5. As a result of his injury, the applicant was totally incapacitated for employment from 27 December 2023 to 18 December 2024. 6. From 19 December 2024 to date and continuing, the applicant has been partially incapacitated for employment with a residual capacity to earn of $660 per week. 7. The respondent is to pay the applicant weekly compensation pursuant to s 37 of the Workers Compensation Act1987 as follows: (a) from 27 December 2023 to 31 March 2024,…

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 Wright v Findex (Aust) Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Wright v Findex (Aust) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 113
Case: [2025] NSWPIC 113
Decision Date: 26 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wright brought a claim against Findex (Aust) Pty Ltd for workers compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The dispute centred on whether Wright's psychological injury was wholly or predominantly caused by the reasonable actions of Findex in relation to performance appraisal and discipline. Findex argued that its actions were reasonable and sought to rely on section 11A of the Act as a defence. The court was required to determine the nature of the causal link between Findex's actions and Wright's injury, and whether Findex's actions were reasonable.

The court held that to examine the question of causation, a commonsense evaluation of the causal chain was necessary. It followed the principles established in Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates. The defence under section 11A is two-pronged: the conduct relied upon must not only be the whole or predominant cause of the injury but also must be reasonable. The reasonableness of the conduct was an objective matter to be decided based on what was appropriate in the circumstances, balancing the consequences against the reasons given for the conduct. The court applied Ritchie v Department of Community Services and considered the manner, timing, and outcome of the conduct in question.

In this case, the evidence revealed that Wright was subjected to ridicule and was addressed in an angry manner by his manager during a virtual meeting in front of several colleagues. Given these circumstances, the court found that Findex's conduct was not reasonable. Consequently, the defence under section 11A failed. The court further assessed Wright's capacity for employment, finding that he had capacity for employment on restricted hours and duties at a residual rate. The respondent was ordered to pay Wright weekly compensation and medical expenses.

Orders