| WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION | |||||
| DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR | |||||
| STATUS: Reported Decision: BHP Billiton Ltd v Bourke (2009) 7 DDCR 535 | |||||
| CITATION: | BHP Billiton Limited & Anor v Bourke & Ors [2009] NSWWCCPD 117 | ||||
| FIRST APPELLANT: | BHP Billiton Limited | ||||
| SECOND APPELLANT: | BlueScope Steel Limited | ||||
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | Jeffrey Thomas Bourke | ||||
| SECOND RESPONDENT: | Toll Pty Ltd | ||||
| INSURERS: | Self insured | ||||
| FILE NUMBERS: | A1-10403/08 | ||||
| A2-10403/08 | |||||
| ARBITRATOR: | Mr M Oldfield | ||||
| DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: | 4 June 2009 | ||||
| DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: | 22 September 2009 | ||||
| SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: | Adequacy of reasons; causation; apportionment under sections 22 and 22A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 | ||||
| PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: | Acting Deputy President Michael Snell | ||||
| HEARING: | On the papers | ||||
| REPRESENTATION: | First Appellant: | Sparke Helmore | |||
| Second Appellant: | Sparke Helmore | ||||
| First Respondent: | Whitelaw McDonald | ||||
| Second Respondent: | Bartier Perry | ||||
| ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL: | 1. The decision of the Arbitrator dated 4 June 2009 is amended as follows: | ||||
| (i) Delete paragraph [1] in its current form, and substitute the following: | |||||
| “1. That the Second and Third Respondents pay the Applicant weekly payments of compensation of $422.20 per week pursuant to section 40 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 from 1 July 2005 to date and continuing in accordance with the maximum statutory rate for a worker with a dependant spouse. The said weekly payments are to be contributed one third by the Second Respondent and two thirds by the Third Respondent.” | |||||
| (ii) Delete the sentence “The First Respondent is liable for expenses only in relation to the Applicant’s left great toe.” from paragraph [2]. | |||||
| (iii) In paragraph [4] insert the words “Second and Third” immediately before the word “Respondents”. | |||||
| (iv) Add the following paragraph: “Award in favour of the First Respondent.” | |||||
| 2. The balance of the decision is confirmed. | |||||
BACKGROUND TO THE APPEAL
Jeffrey Thomas Bourke (‘Mr Bourke’) is 60 years of age, left handed, and has a dependant wife. He worked as a stevedore from about 1968, and was employed at Port Kembla from 1979. The work, according to the medical histories, was heavy. The identity of his employer changed from time to time, although there is no indication this was accompanied by a change in the nature of his work. This has resulted in the multiplicity of parties in the current proceedings. He ceased working in July 2005.
The first of the employers in time, at least for the purposes of these proceedings, was BHP Billiton Limited (‘BHP’). This company employed Mr Bourke at the time of injuries to the right foot alleged to have occurred on 7 October 1984 and 28 June 1986. An injury book setting out Mr Bourke’s reported injuries from 15 July 1981 to 26 February 2001 is attached to BlueScope’s Reply. It confirms injuries to the right foot and/or lower leg on the two days alleged, together with an earlier incident involving the right foot on 15 July 1981. The precise nature of these injuries was the subject of controversy. An x-ray of the right foot on 12 January…
Continue reading BHP Billiton Ltd v Bourke
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- BHP Billiton Ltd v Bourke [2009] NSWWCCPD 117
- Case
- [2009] NSWWCCPD 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the reasons provided by the Arbitrator were adequate and sufficient to support the decision made, and if the apportionment of liability between BHP Billiton Ltd and other parties was correctly determined. The court also needed to consider the causation of Bourke’s injuries and the extent to which his pre-existing conditions contributed to his overall condition and the severity of his injuries.
In its reasoning, the court found that the reasons provided by the Arbitrator were inadequate as they did not sufficiently address the contributions of pre-existing conditions to Bourke’s overall injuries. The court held that the Arbitrator failed to adequately consider the specific provisions of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, particularly in relation to the interaction between sections 22 and 22A. The court further determined that the apportionment of liability was not correctly assessed, as the Arbitrator did not appropriately weigh the contribution of the pre-existing conditions and other contributing factors. Consequently, the decision was remitted back to the Arbitrator for reconsideration with the appropriate legal framework and findings.
The final orders of the court included amending the decision of the Arbitrator dated 4 June 2009 to ensure that the reasons provided were adequate and sufficient. The court directed the Arbitrator to reconsider the apportionment of liability and causation in light of the court’s findings, ensuring that all relevant legal principles were appropriately applied. The matter was to be remitted back to the Arbitrator for further determination in accordance with the court’s directions.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The decision of the Arbitrator dated 4 June 2009 is amended as follows:
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.