Section 74 notice
Hobden v South East Illawarra AHS  NSWWCCPD 13. Keating P.
Keating P slated antecedent process.
At , his Honour said: “The s 74 notice issued by the employer was defective and is unacceptable. The broad-brush assertion that the employer ‘acted reasonably in their actions’ does not comply with the requirements of s 74. It does not properly identify the action or actions the employer relied upon as having been the whole or predominant cause of the psychological injury. That is not sufficient,” noting RTA v Gentle  NSWWCCPD 111 and Gray v Busways Gosford &c  NSWWCCPD 124.
And , “If an insurer or employer disputes liability in respect of a claim, or any aspect of a claim, it is required to give the claimant proper notice of the dispute.
"A s 74 notice must be in plain language and clearly and succinctly state the reasons the insurer disputes liability and the issues relevant to the dispute."
To remainder of Hobden summary>>
Department of Corrective Services v Bowditch  NSWWCCPD 244. Roche DP.
33. The term 'notice of dispute' is not defined in either the 1987 Act or the 1998 Act but it seems reasonable to conclude that it refers to a notice issued under either section 74 of the 1998 Act or section 54 of the 1987 Act.
"This is consistent with the definition of 'dispute notice' in clause 2 of Schedule 6 of the 2003 Regulation, which deals with costs.
"The word 'dispute' is defined in section 76 of the 1998 Act to mean (for the purposes of Division 3) 'a dispute in connection with a claim for compensation between a person who makes a claim and the person or insurer on whom the claim is made'.
"In my view the letter of 13 December 2006 was a 'notice of dispute' for the purposes of section 289A, though it did not strictly comply with clause 15.
"The question remains: what issues were notified in that letter as being in dispute?"
Paper: click graphic below please