Taylor v J & D Stephens Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 267

Taylor v J & D Stephens Pty Ltd [2018] NSWCA 267

The Deputy President erred in law by failing to identify and correct the Arbitrator's misdirection regarding the test for 'disease injury' under s 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). The correct legal test does not require a contemporaneous complaint of symptoms; the appellant's evidence of physiological change was sufficient, and the matter should be remitted for determination according to law.

Parties
Appellant: Matthew Taylor; Respondent: J & D Stephens Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal – Appeal From Appellate Decision of Deputy President, Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disease Injury, Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Onus of Proof, Jurisdictional Error

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Taylor

Appellant

J & D Stephens Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal – Appeal From Appellate Decision of Deputy President, Supreme Court of New South Wales

  1. 1 Whether Deputy President misapprehended what had been put to the Arbitrator
  2. 2 Whether Deputy President failed to exercise jurisdiction under s 352 Workplace Injury Management and Workers' Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether a complaint of symptoms is necessary before 'disease injury' can be established under Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy President erred in law by failing to identify and correct the Arbitrator's misdirection regarding the test for 'disease injury' under s 4(b) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). The correct legal test does not require a contemporaneous complaint of symptoms; the appellant's evidence of physiological change was sufficient, and the matter should be remitted for determination according to law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Extend the time for filing the Notice of Appeal.
  • Allow the appeal.