Australian Postal Corporation v Burch

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – employee suffering stroke while at work – whether injury

WORDS AND PHRASES – “injury” – “disease”

Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) ss 4, 14

Kavanagh v The Commonwealth (1986) 163 CLR 547 applied
Accident Compensation Commission v McIntosh [1991] 2 VR 253 applied
Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 187 CLR 310 mentioned
Hume SteelLtd v Peart (1947) 75 CLR 242 applied

AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION v SIMON JOHN BURCH

NO. VG 66 of 1998

JUDGES:      HEEREY, SUNDBERG and NORTH JJ
DATE:           5 AUGUST 1998
PLACE:         MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 66  of   1998

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION APPELLANT
AND:	SIMON JOHN BURCH RESPONDENT
JUDGES:		HEEREY, SUNDBERG AND NORTH JJ
DATE OF ORDER:		5 AUGUST 1998
WHERE MADE:		MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be dismissed with costs including reserved costs.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VG 66 of 1998

BETWEEN:	AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION APPELLANT
AND:	SIMON JOHN BURCH RESPONDENT

JUDGES:	HEEREY, SUNDBERG AND NORTH JJ
DATE:	5 AUGUST 1998
PLACE:	MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

On 29 September 1994, while working in the course of his employment at the Malvern Post Office, the respondent Simon John Burch was carrying a bundle of letters.  Some of the letters slipped out of the bundle and fell onto the floor.  Mr Burch bent down to pick them up.  After about 15 seconds, while still crouched down, he fell sideways, hitting his head on a metal bracket, and collapsed on the floor. 

He was immediately admitted to hospital and found to have suffered a right middle cerebral artery occlusion.  As a consequence he suffered what is popularly referred to as a stroke, that is to say an interference with the blood supply to the brain and resultant loss of oxygen and destruction of brain tissue.

Mr Burch suffered incapacity and claimed compensation under s 14(1) of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth) (the Act). This claim was rejected by the appellant. Mr Burch successfully appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal). The appellant’s appeal to this Court was dismissed by Northrop J. The appellant now appeals to the Full Court.

Statutory Provisions

As already noted, the basis of Mr Burch’s claim is that the appellant, in terms of s 14(1)

“… is liable to pay compensation in accordance with this Act in respect of an injury suffered by an employee if the injury results in death, incapacity for work, or impairment.”

Section 4(1) of the Act contains the definition of certain terms “unless the contrary intention appears”. The following definitions are relevant to the present case:

“‘injury’ means:

(a)   a disease suffered by an employee; or

(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an  employee, being a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course…