THAZINE-AYE v WORKCOVER AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1995] NSWCA 467

THAZINE-AYE vy WORKCOVER AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE, MEAGHER and POWELL JJA 7 September 1995, 20 September 1995 [1995] NSWCA 467

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT APPEAL — WHETHER EMOTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF HER DISAPPOINTMENT AMOUNTED TO AN INJURY —NO

FACTS

The appellant brought proceedings against her employer and the WorkCover Authority on the basis that she had suffered an injury when her employer failed to appoint her to that position to which she aspired and that the emotional consequences of the disappointment resulted in incapacity.

Held (per Clarke JA; Meagher and Powell JJA concurring)

The trial judge was correct in failing to be satisfied that the appellant had received an injury arising out of or in the course of her employment. Although her frustration and upset was of an exceptionally high degree, it does not mean that she had sustained an injury arising out of the course of her employment.

ORDERS

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Clarke JA Monica Thazine-Aye, the appellant, brought proceedings in the Compensation Court of New South Wales against her employer and the WorkCover Authority claiming weekly payments of compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. In her application the following entry appeared opposite the column which read:

"Date and place of injury, nature of work on which 1. From May, 1988 to date at Respondent's worker was then engaged, and cause of injury: premises Applicant subjected to undue stress associated with her employment.

2. On 27.6.88 applicant subjected to undue

stress when notified not to do field work.

3. From June 1988 to date Applicant subjected to undue stress in being obliged to perform

clerical duties."

Further, the nature of the injury was described as "anxiety state and depression caused and/or aggravated by particulars in paraS hereof" (which I have set out). The employer denied liability and her case was heard by Moroney CCJ who, in a reserved decision, found an award for the respondent employer. The appellant appealed substantially upon the ground that the trial judge erred in not finding that she had suffered an injury arising out of her employment. The case was a complicated one and it is necessary to refer in a little detail to the facts.