Van Wessem v Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 214

Van Wessem v Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 214

The President did not err in law; there was no erroneous decision in point of law. The employment concerned was not found to be a substantial contributing factor to the injury, as the facts supported the finding that Mr Van Wessem's cycling was part of his lifestyle and independent of any employment obligation. The requirements under s 9A(1) were not met.

Parties
Appellant: Susan Van Wessem; Respondent: Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal From Decision of President of Workers Compensation Commission
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Substantial Contributing Factor, Injury in Course of Employment, Erroneous Decision in Point of Law, Assessment of Causation Under S 9 a
Workers Compensation Employment Law Substantial Contributing Factor Injury in Course of Employment Erroneous Decision in Point of Law Assessment of Causation Under S 9 a

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Van Wessem

Appellant

Entertainment Outlet Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal From Decision of President of Workers Compensation Commission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment was a substantial contributing factor to Mr Van Wessem's fatal injury within the meaning of s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the President erred in law by misapplying the statutory test in s 9A

Ratio Decidendi

The President did not err in law; there was no erroneous decision in point of law. The employment concerned was not found to be a substantial contributing factor to the injury, as the facts supported the finding that Mr Van Wessem's cycling was part of his lifestyle and independent of any employment obligation. The requirements under s 9A(1) were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.