State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Chemler

[2006] NSWCA 249

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers Compensation
2. › Psychological injury
3. › Defence under s 11A
4. › Whether psychological injury wholly or predominantly caused by reasonable disciplinary action
5. › Causal distinction between s 9A and s 11A
6. › Whether satisfaction of s 9A precludes application of s 11A
7. › Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 9A(1), 11A(1)
1. Workers Compensation
2. › Appeal in point of law
3. › Nature of reasons giving rise to error in point of law
4. › Whether finding of fact reveals error of law
5. › Misdirection as to statutory question of fact
6. › Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), s 353

Quick Take

Satisfaction of the s 9A requirement that employment be a 'substantial contributing factor' to a psychological injury does not preclude the operation of s 11A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). It is perfectly possible for employment to be a substantial contributing factor to injury and yet for reasonable disciplinary action to be the sole or predominant cause of the injury, thereby barring compensation under s 11A. A decision-maker who treats satisfaction of s 9A as disposing of the s 11A question commits an error of law.