| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||||
| CITATION: | Yang v Topline Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWWCCPD 117 | ||||
| APPELLANT: | Sui Wen (Bill) Yang | ||||
| RESPONDENT: | Topline Holdings Pty Limited t/as Topline Shower Screens & Wardrobe | ||||
| INSURER: | GIO General Limited | ||||
| FILE NUMBER: | WCC A1-2698/10 | ||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Ms D Moore | ||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 14 July 2010 | ||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 5 November 2010 | ||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Application to extend time to appeal; s 352(4) of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 | ||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | President Judge Keating | ||||
| HEARING: | On the papers | ||||
| REPRESENTATION: | Appellant: | Firths Compensation Lawyers | |||
| Respondent: | Rankin Nathan Lawyers | ||||
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | Leave to appeal is refused. Each party is to pay his or its own costs of the appeal. | ||||
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
The appellant, Sui Wen Yang (also known as Bill Yang) was employed by the respondent employer ,Topline Holdings Pty Limited trading as Topline Shower Screens, as a process worker.
In a claim form dated 28 June 2007, Mr Yang claimed he suffered a neck strain on 31 May 2007 while assembling shower screens.
In a subsequent claim form dated 9 May 2008, Mr Yang alleged he injured his neck, back and chest on 31 May 2007 due to a greater than usual amount of lifting and hammering. He also alleged his injuries were due to the ‘nature and conditions’ of his employment.
Liability in respect of the injury on 31 May 2007 was initially accepted by GIO and payments were made to Mr Yang from that time until 18 August 2009.
Pursuant to a s 74 notice dated 8 July 2009, GIO disputed Mr Yang had suffered an injury to his back in the incident on 31 May 2007. GIO accepted that Mr Yang suffered an injury to his neck in the course of his employment on 31 May 2007, but alleged that the injury was a temporary aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative condition, the effects of which had ceased. It denied liability for medical expenses, permanent impairment and denied any injury to the chest arising from the alleged injury on 31 May 2007.
Mr Yang filed an Application to Resolve a Dispute (the Application) in the Commission on 10 April 2010. He alleged that he sustained a number of work-related injuries during the course of his employment:
(a) in or about April/May 2006, injury to the lumbar spine as a result of lifting a glass panel;
(b) on or about 31 May 2007, injury to the neck and right sternoclavicular joint as a result of repetitive lifting and hammering;
(c) in or about February/March 2008, aggravation of neck, sternoclavicular joint and lumbar spine as a result of lifting and hammering shower screens into aluminium rims, and
(d) alternatively, aggravation of a disease of gradual onset in the cervical and lumbar spines due to the nature and conditions of employment from 19 June 2003 to 27 March 2008 involving heavy and repetitive lifting, carrying, bending and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Yang v Topline Holdings Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] NSWWCCPD 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered whether Yang's delay in lodging the application for leave to appeal was reasonable, taking into account all the circumstances, including the reasons for the delay. The court emphasised the importance of the statutory time limits in the appeals process and the need for certainty and finality in workers compensation matters. The court found that Yang had not provided sufficient grounds to justify the delay, and therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.
The court held that Yang had not demonstrated that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time to appeal. The court noted that Yang had been represented by legal practitioners throughout the proceedings, and that he had been aware of the need to comply with the statutory time limit. The court also noted that Yang had not suffered any significant prejudice as a result of the delay, as the evidence and arguments in the original proceedings were still available to the Court of Appeal.
Each party is to bear its own costs of the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal is refused.
Each party is to pay his or its own costs of the appeal.
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.