Yum Restaurants Australia Pty Ltd t/as Pizza Hut Restaurants v Watters

The case before the Court of Appeal was an application by Yum Restaurants Australia Pty Ltd trading as Pizza Hut Restaurants against Watters, seeking review of a decision made by an Arbitrator. The applicant sought to challenge the Arbitrator's determination that Watters, a former employee, was entitled to compensation for a personal injury she suffered on 17 March 2006 while working at one of the respondent's restaurants. The dispute involved the applicability of sections 4 and 10 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, and whether the decision in Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd was correctly applied to the facts of this case.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Arbitrator erred in finding that Watters was entitled to compensation for her injury. The Court needed to determine if the injury was a personal injury within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and whether it arose out of, or in the course of, Watters' employment. The Court also considered whether the Arbitrator correctly applied the decision in Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd to the facts of this case.

The Court found that the Arbitrator did not err in finding that Watters was entitled to compensation for her injury. The Court held that the injury was a personal injury within the meaning of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 and arose out of, or in the course of, Watters' employment. The Court also found that the Arbitrator correctly applied the decision in Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd to the facts of this case. However, the Court found that the Arbitrator did not properly consider the evidence before them and did not properly assess the degree of whole person impairment resulting from the injury. The Court therefore revoked the Arbitrator's determination and remitted the matter to the Registrar for referral to an Approved Medical Specialist for assessment of any whole person impairment of the worker's lumbar spine as a result of the injury.

The Court also ordered that the respondent employer is to pay the applicant worker's costs, as agreed or assessed. The Court found that the Arbitrator's decision was not supported by the evidence and that the employer had acted unreasonably in contesting the claim for compensation. The Court therefore ordered the employer to pay the worker's costs of the appeal.