Murray v Commissioner of Police

[2004] NSWCA 365

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers Compensation
2. › Hurt on duty
3. › Police officer
4. › Whether PTSD caused during course of employment
5. › Whether evidence supported finding on cause of injury
6. › No evidence to support primary judge's finding
7. › Police Regulation (Superannuation) Act 1906 (NSW), ss 1(1), 10(1), 10(1A), 10B(1), 10B(3)
1. Workers Compensation
2. › Psychological injury
3. › Reasonable action by employer
4. › Transfer of worker
5. › Whether injury wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable action with respect to transfer
6. › Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 11A(1)
1. Evidence
2. › No evidence
3. › Error of law
4. › Finding of fact unsupported by evidence
5. › Irrelevant evidence
6. › Admission of expert opinion on issue already determined
1. Estoppel
2. › Issue estoppel
3. › Privity
4. › Whether Commissioner of Police privy of SAS Trustee Corporation
5. › Separate statutory functions
6. › No common interest

Quick Take

Where a police officer's certificate of incapacity specifies PTSD as the relevant infirmity, the Compensation Court is bound by that certification and expert evidence disputing the PTSD diagnosis is irrelevant to the 'hurt on duty' determination — the only question is whether the PTSD was work-related. A finding that PTSD was caused by a workplace transfer cannot be sustained where the transfer does not satisfy the DSM-IV diagnostic criterion A requiring exposure to actual or threatened death or serious injury. The Commissioner of Police is not a privy of the SAS Trustee Corporation for issue estoppel purposes because they have separate statutory functions with no common interest.