Tudor Capital Australia Pty Limited v Christensen

[2017] NSWCA 260

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Workers Compensation
2. › Injury
3. › Personal injury arising out of or in the course of employment
4. › Identification of 'injury' within meaning of s 4
5. › Whether 'experience of stress' constitutes 'injury'
6. › Whether injury involves physiological change
7. › Whether psychological injury requiring consideration of s 11A
8. › Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), ss 4(a), 9, 9A, 11A, 25
1. Workers Compensation
2. › Substantial contributing factor
3. › Employment as substantial contributing factor to injury
4. › Evaluative process under s 9A
5. › Whether correct identification of injury prerequisite to s 9A analysis
6. › Matters to be taken into account including pre-existing conditions
7. › Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 9A
1. Evidence
2. › Sufficiency of evidence
3. › Competing medical evidence as to cause of death
4. › Whether sufficient proof to support finding of probable causal connection
5. › Whether medical science not denying possibility of connection sufficient
6. › Whether decision-maker overlooked material medical evidence
7. › Autopsy slides and expert pathology evidence
1. Administrative Law
2. › Adequacy of reasons
3. › Constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction
4. › Whether failure to analyse competing expert evidence constitutes error of law
5. › Whether failure to give adequate reasons amounts to constructive failure of jurisdiction
6. › Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 352, 353

Quick Take

A workers compensation claimant must precisely identify the physiological change constituting 'injury' under s 4 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) before the s 9A substantial contributing factor analysis can be properly undertaken. Where the identified injury is an 'experience of stress', the decision-maker must determine whether it constitutes a 'psychological injury' requiring consideration of s 11A. A decision-maker dealing with starkly contrasting medical evidence must engage in rational analysis of the competing expert opinions and give adequate reasons for preferring one body of evidence over another; failure to do so constitutes a constructive failure to exercise jurisdiction.