Case: Singh v Westpac Banking Corporation & Anor [2025] NSWPIC 73
Date of Decision: 5 March 2025
Jurisdiction: Personal Injury Commission
Background
The Applicant, Mr Singh, suffered psychological injuries, namely major depressive disorder and generalised anxiety disorder, during the course of his employment and as a result of workload and pressure of work. Mr Singh was employed with Westpac Banking Corporation from 10 August 2020 until TAL Services Limited took over the group on 1 August 2022.
The Applicant’s psychological injury was deemed to have occurred on 28 May 2021 during his employment with Westpac Banking Corporation, the First Respondent. The applicant took a period of time off work and returned on 10 January 2022 to restricted duties before his employment was transferred to TAL Services Limited, the Second Respondent. The Applicant ceased work as a result of aggravated injuries on 22 August 2022. This date was deemed the second date of injury.
The Applicant therefore brought a claim for lump sum compensation for permanent impairment with respect of both employers.
Issue in Dispute
The issue in dispute in this matter are:
- Whether liability ought to be attributed for the injury to the Second Respondent as a result of the aggravation; and
- Whether a claim against the First Respondent still stands given the circumstances.
The First Respondent argued that as the aggravation of the initial injury arose as a result of new stressors, liability for the Applicant’s injury should no longer be on the First Respondent.
The Second Respondent made an argument that there were no new or novel circumstances that arose, and that the initial injury merely resurfaced during the Applicant’s time working for the Second Respondent.
Decision
The Commission found that the injury that occurred with the First Respondent was made more serious by new work-related stressors during the Applicant’s employment with the Second Respondent.
The Commission also found that this was not a question of new or novel circumstances, but rather a question of whether the Applicant’s work duties in the course of his employment with the Second Respondent resulted in injury by way of aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of his psychological condition.
The Commission found that the Applicant’s claim was mainly an aggravation injury with the Second Respondent, and therefore the claim against the First Respondent was dismissed.
An assessment of permanent impairment was therefore commenced regarding the aggravation injury only. Liability for the injury was attributed to the Second Respondent only.
Key Lessons for Employers and Insurers
The key takeaways from this case concern causation, the impact a change of employment may have on a worker’s return-to-work process, and the liability implication of aggravation injuries:
- Employers and insurers must be aware of causation principles where it is found that there are two dates of injury.
- It is not enough to argue that there ought to be new or novel circumstances for a new injury to arise in circumstances where the worker has suffered an aggravation.
- Where an injury can originate under one employer, aggravation of that injury as a result of new stressors may result in the second employer bearing the full brunt of the claim.
Contributor: Mary-Ann Ezzy
The material contained in this publication is in the nature of general comment only, and neither purports nor is intended to be advice on any particular matter. No reader should act on the basis of any matter contained in this publication without considering, and if necessary, taking appropriate professional advice upon their own particular circumstances.