Legal Research
Cases
Asioty v Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd

Asioty v Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 20 September 1989 13 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J., Brennan, Dawson, Toohey and McHugh JJ.

ASIOTY v. CANBERRA ABATTOIR PTY LTD

(1989) 167 CLR 533

20 September 1989

Workers' Compensation (A.C.T.)

Workers' Compensation (A.C.T.)—Incapacity—Disease due to nature of employment—Aggravation of pre-existing disease included in "disease"—Worker suffering from constitutional dermatitis not caused by employment—Employment causing condition to flare—Abatement on ceasing work—Condition more difficult to treat—Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 (A.C.T.), ss. 6(1) "disease", 9(1).

Decisions

MASON C.J. I agree with the reasons for judgment of Toohey J.

BRENNAN J. I agree with the reasons for judgment of Toohey J.

DAWSON J. I agree with the reasons for judgment of Toohey J.

TOOHEY J. The appellant suffers from a condition which produces a dermatitis of the hands. One medical view is that it is a constitutional condition called Amyloidosis Cutis, which may have a genetic factor. Another view is that it is "a dermatitis of unknown cause". It will be necessary to say more about this difference of medical opinion later in these reasons. The appellant also has a condition called Lichen Amyloidosis, described by one medical witness as "a disease of unknown origin". This condition, it seems, also causes a dermatitis which affects the appellant's feet.

2. The appellant was born in Egypt in 1931. For much of his life he has worked as a waiter, at first in Egypt and more recently in Australia. On 10 October 1980 he began work with the respondent as a slaughterman. Not long after he started work, the appellant developed dermatitis of his hands and also, it appears, of his feet. As a result he was off work from time to time. For these periods he was paid workers' compensation; it must have been accepted that the dermatitis constituted an injury in the nature of a disease which was caused or aggravated by the appellant's employment. However, the matter has proceeded on the basis that any compensable injury relates to the dermatitis of the hands only.

3. On 12 January 1983 the respondent filed an application under the Workmen's Compensation Ordinance 1951 (A.C.T.), seeking a termination of weekly payments of compensation from 30 June 1982. The appellant countered with an application, seeking a continuance of payments on the basis of total incapacity for work, alternatively on the basis of partial incapacity. On 13 December 1984 the Court of Petty Sessions, acting as arbitrator under the provisions of the Ordinance, made an award to the effect that the appellant was entitled to weekly payments on the basis of partial incapacity. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. Kelly J. allowed the present appellant's appeal and substituted a finding of total incapacity. The Full Court of the Federal Court allowed the present respondent's appeal to that Court and ordered that payments of compensation cease from 18 August 1983.

4. The approach taken by the Federal Court appears from a passage which it is necessary to set out in full:
" The evidence before the Court…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Asioty v Canberra Abattoir 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: [1989] HCA 40
Decision Date: 20 September 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Asioty from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had dismissed his appeal against a judgment of the District Court. The dispute concerned Asioty's claim for damages for personal injuries sustained while employed by Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd. Asioty alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligence of his employer.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the employer, Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd, had breached its duty of care to Asioty. Specifically, the court had to determine if the employer had taken all reasonable precautions to prevent injury to its employees, particularly in relation to the safe operation of machinery and the provision of adequate supervision and training.

The High Court, in its joint judgment, found that the employer had failed to discharge its duty of care. The court reasoned that the employer ought to have foreseen the risk of injury to Asioty given the nature of the work and the machinery involved. It was held that the employer had not implemented adequate safety measures, including proper training and supervision, to mitigate this foreseeable risk. The court applied the principles of negligence, focusing on the employer's obligation to provide a safe working environment and to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to its employees.

The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the Supreme Court and remitting the matter to the District Court for assessment of damages.

Orders