Ali Kanj v Nonabel Concrete Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 44 min read
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Ali Kanj v Nonabel Concrete Pty Ltd [2018] NSWWCCPD 43
APPELLANT: Mayssoun Ali Kanj
FIRST RESPONDENT: Nonabel Concrete Pty Ltd
SECOND RESPONDENT: Fatme Obeid
THIRD RESPONDENT: Ali Jamal
FOURTH RESPONDENT: Sari Jamal
INSURER: AAI LTD trading as GIO – Agent for the Worker’s Compensation Nominal Insurer
FILE NUMBER: A2-2125/17
ARBITRATOR: Mr B Batchelor
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 22 May 2018
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 4 October 2018
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Admission of new evidence – D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; 223 CLR 1 applied; dependency; s 25(1) of the WorkersCompensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act) –principles in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41; SLT 775; 1 WLR 2600 applied; the exercise of discretion in apportioning the compensation payable in accordance with s 29 of the 1987 Act – Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 274 applied
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Crowther Sim Lawyers
First Respondent: McCabe Curwood
Second Respondent: Slater and Gordon Lawyers
Third Respondent: Self-represented
Fourth Respondent: Turner Freeman
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.    The Certificate of Determination dated 22 May 2018 is confirmed.

INTRODUCTION

  1. These proceedings concern claims against Nonabel Concrete Pty Ltd (Nonabel) in respect of the death of Souhayb Jamal (the deceased). The deceased died on 28 March 2017 as a result of injury received in the course of his employment with Nonabel on 27 March 2017.

  2. The claims were for the lump sum death benefit provided for in s 25(1)(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (the 1987 Act), which was $765,650 as at the date of death.

  3. Mr Ali Jamal, Ms Mayssoun Ali Kanj (also referred to as Ms Mayssoun Al Kanj), Mrs Fatme Obeid and Ms Sari Jamal all alleged that they were at least partly dependent on the deceased at the date of death.

  4. This appeal, which is brought by Ms Ali Kanj, is an appeal from a decision of Arbitrator Batchelor dated 22 May 2018 which is the same decision that was the subject of appeal in Jamal v NonabelConcrete Pty Ltd,[1] brought by Mr Ali Jamal.

    [1] [2018] NSWWCCPD 42 (Jamal v Nonabel).

BACKGROUND

  1. Ms Ali Kanj was the deceased’s sister. Ms Sari Jamal was also a sister of the deceased. Mr Ali Jamal is the deceased’s father. Mrs Obeid, the deceased’s mother, was previously married to Mr Jamal. They had separated more than twenty years prior to these proceedings.

  2. There were a number of other siblings of the deceased and as Mr Jamal had remarried, there were also seven half siblings. None of those other siblings claimed dependency.

  3. Ms Ali Kanj was the only claimed dependant living in Australia. Each of the remaining prospective dependants live in Lebanon. Mrs Obeid and Ms Jamal resided together.

  4. The deceased had been employed with Nonabel for only about one week when the injury occurred,…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ali Kanj v Nonabel Concrete Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2018] NSWWCCPD 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ali Kanj brought an action against Nonabel Concrete Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of New South Wales, seeking to overturn a determination by the Workers Compensation Assessment Office that rejected his application for compensation. Kanj's claim was based on an injury he sustained while working for Nonabel, and he argued that the determination was incorrect in law. The central legal issues the court had to resolve were whether the new evidence Kanj sought to introduce was admissible under the principles established in D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid, and whether the Workers Compensation Assessment Officer had correctly applied the provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 in determining the degree of dependency and the appropriate compensation. The court considered whether the new evidence Kanj wished to introduce was relevant and material and whether it could be admitted under the circumstances described in D’Orta-Ekenaike. In examining the dependency issue, the court applied the principles established in Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd, focusing on the extent to which Kanj's injury impacted his ability to earn an income and his capacity for work. Regarding the compensation apportionment, the court referred to Micallef v ICI Australia Operations Pty Ltd, considering the discretion exercised by the Workers Compensation Assessment Officer in determining the appropriate level of compensation.

The court concluded that the new evidence Kanj wished to present was not admissible because it did not meet the criteria outlined in D’Orta-Ekenaike. The court also found that the Workers Compensation Assessment Officer had correctly assessed the degree of dependency in accordance with the principles from Henderson and had exercised the discretion in apportioning compensation appropriately under the guidelines provided by Micallef. The court confirmed the Certificate of Determination, affirming the decision of the Workers Compensation Assessment Officer.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Certificate of Determination dated 22 May 2018 is confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.