BHP BILLITON LTD -v- GOMES [2007] WASCA 140
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2007] WASCA 140 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:57/2006 | 9 MARCH 2007 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER P WHEELER JA PULLIN JA | 4/07/07 | |
| 17 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | BHP BILLITON LTD JOSE GOMES |
Catchwords: | Worker's compensation Review Officer determining degree of disability Whether Review Officer has to determine whether disability is work related Meaning of disability Words and phrases "Disability" |
Legislation: | Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), Pt IV Div 2, s 5(a), s 5(d), s 93B(1), s 93C, s 93D, s 93E |
Case References: | Alcoa v Paladini, unreported; CM-128/05; 6 June 2006 Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 1; (2001) 204 CLR 559 Casserly v Alcoa of Australia Ltd [2006] WASCA 150 Chestone Holdings Pty Ltd v Garbelini, unreported, FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980584; 19 October 1999 Cuellar-Castellanos v CPE Health Care, unreported; CM-44/05 (Packington CM); 1 February 2006 Eclipse Resources v Reeves, unreported; CM-42/04; 13 September 2004 Ex parte Ansett Australia Ltd v Medical Assessment Panel (1998) 19 WAR 395 Girrawheen Tavern v Joseph [2003] WASCA 244 Hammond Worthington v De Silva [2006] WASCA 180 Hart v Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd [2005] WASCA 130 Magrath v Goldsbrough Mort & Co Ltd (1932) 47 CLR 121 Marshall v Lockyer [2006] WASCA 58 Murray River North Pty Ltd v Midgley [2006] WASCA 104 R v Lord Chancellor; Ex parte Witham [1998] QB 575 Raymond v Honey [1983] 1 AC 1 Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253 Re Skirving; Ex parte Forward, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980737; 18 December 1998 Stockman v Argyle Diamond Sales Ltd [2002] WASCA 89 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BHP BILLITON LTD -v- GOMES [2007] WASCA 140 CORAM : STEYTLER P
- WHEELER JA
PULLIN JA
- Appellant
AND
JOSE GOMES
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : COMPENSATION MAGISTRATES COURT
Coram : MS P M HOGAN CM
File No : CM 124 of 2005
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Worker's compensation - Review Officer determining degree of disability - Whether Review Officer has to determine whether disability is work related - Meaning of disability
Words and phrases - "Disability"
Legislation:
Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), Pt IV Div 2, s 5(a), s 5(d), s 93B(1), s 93C, s 93D, s 93E
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: A
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr D R Clyne
Respondent : Ms H E Prince
Solicitors:
Appellant : Pynt & Partners
Respondent : Chapmans
(Page 3)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Alcoa v Paladini, unreported; CM-128/05; 6 June 2006
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Edensor Nominees Pty…
Continue reading BHP Billiton Ltd v Gomes
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- BHP Billiton Ltd v Gomes [2007] WASCA 140
- Case
- [2007] WASCA 140
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
BHP Billiton Ltd recently faced off against Gomes in a dispute concerning the determination of the degree of disability and whether the Review Officer was required to ascertain if the disability was work-related. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, which was asked to review the decision of the Review Officer. The crux of the matter was whether the Review Officer had to determine the work-related nature of Gomes' disability when assessing the degree of disability.
The primary legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "disability" under the workers' compensation legislation. Specifically, the court needed to clarify if the Review Officer was obligated to ascertain whether the disability was work-related when determining the degree of disability. This question was pivotal as it had implications for the process and scope of reviews conducted by the Review Officer.
The court examined the statutory language and relevant precedents to interpret the term "disability." It concluded that the Review Officer was not required to determine whether the disability was work-related at the time of assessing the degree of disability. The court found that the statutory framework allowed for a separate process to address the work-related aspect of the disability. The court's reasoning hinged on a precise interpretation of the legislative language and the established practice of distinguishing between the degree of disability and its causation. The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the Review Officer's approach.
The primary legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the term "disability" under the workers' compensation legislation. Specifically, the court needed to clarify if the Review Officer was obligated to ascertain whether the disability was work-related when determining the degree of disability. This question was pivotal as it had implications for the process and scope of reviews conducted by the Review Officer.
The court examined the statutory language and relevant precedents to interpret the term "disability." It concluded that the Review Officer was not required to determine whether the disability was work-related at the time of assessing the degree of disability. The court found that the statutory framework allowed for a separate process to address the work-related aspect of the disability. The court's reasoning hinged on a precise interpretation of the legislative language and the established practice of distinguishing between the degree of disability and its causation. The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the Review Officer's approach.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed
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.