BLONDEL -v- WESFARMERS CSBP LTD [2004] WASCA 117
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2004] WASCA 117 | |
| THE FULL COURT (WA) | |||
| Case No: | FUL:13/2003 | 15 APRIL 2004 | |
| Coram: | STEYTLER J MILLER J EM HEENAN J | 9/06/04 | |
| 24 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | EMMANUEL BERNARD BLONDEL WESFARMERS CSBP LTD |
Catchwords: | Damages Assessment of damages Injuries sustained in the course of employment Trial Judge did not accept appellant's evidence as regards nature and consequences of injuries Whether trial Judge wrongly concluded appellant suffered only a minor injury Whether trial Judge wrongly concluded appellant's depression was unrelated to the work incidents Grounds of appeal not made out No error in award of damages Turns on own facts Negligence Breach of duty Whether employer liable for injury suffered by appellant Appellant was the author of his own misfortune Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford [2002] WASCA 214 Reynolds v Katoomba RSL All Services Club Limited (2001) 53 NSWLR 43 Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46 Uzabeaga v Town of Cottesloe [2004] WASCA 57 Waverley Municipal Council v Swain (2003) A Tort Rep 81-694 Hamilton v Nuroof (WA) Pty Ltd (1956) 96 CLR 18 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : BLONDEL -v- WESFARMERS CSBP LTD [2004] WASCA 117 CORAM : STEYTLER J
- MILLER J
EM HEENAN J
- Appellant
AND
WESFARMERS CSBP LTD
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : DEANE DCJ
Citation Number : [2003] WADC 5
File Number : CIV 3216 of 1999
(Page 2)
Catchwords:
Damages - Assessment of damages - Injuries sustained in the course of employment - Trial Judge did not accept appellant's evidence as regards nature and consequences of injuries - Whether trial Judge wrongly concluded appellant suffered only a minor injury - Whether trial Judge wrongly concluded appellant's depression was unrelated to the work incidents - Grounds of appeal not made out - No error in award of damages - Turns on own facts
Negligence - Breach of duty - Whether employer liable for injury suffered by appellant - Appellant was the author of his own misfortune - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Appeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr I L K Marshall
Respondent : Mr D R Clyne
Solicitors:
Appellant : S C Nigam & Co
Respondent : Julian Lentzner
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Gondoline Pty Ltd v Hansford [2002] WASCA 214
Reynolds v Katoomba RSL All Services Club Limited (2001) 53 NSWLR 43
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46
Uzabeaga v Town of Cottesloe [2004] WASCA 57
Waverley Municipal Council v Swain (2003) A Tort Rep 81-694
(Page 3)
Case(s) also cited:
Hamilton…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Blondel v Wesfarmers CSBP 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2004] WASCA 117
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Blondel v Wesfarmers CSBP Ltd, the appellant, Blondel, sought to appeal the assessment of damages awarded to him for injuries sustained during his employment. The dispute was heard and determined in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary concern was whether the trial judge had erred in the assessment of the damages awarded to the appellant, specifically regarding the nature and consequences of the injuries he sustained, as well as the relationship between his depression and the work incidents.
The court was required to decide whether the trial judge had wrongly concluded that the appellant had only suffered a minor injury and whether the trial judge had erred in concluding that the appellant's depression was unrelated to the work incidents. Additionally, the court had to examine if the appellant's grounds of appeal were valid and if there was any error in the award of damages. The court also needed to determine if the employer was liable for the injury suffered by the appellant and if the appellant was the author of his own misfortune.
The court found that the grounds of appeal were not made out and that there was no error in the award of damages. The assessment of damages turned on the facts of the case. The court held that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the appellant suffered only a minor injury, as the appellant was the author of his own misfortune. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the appellant's depression was unrelated to the work incidents. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original decision, stating that there was no error in the award of damages. The court found that the assessment of damages turned on the specific facts of the case, and that the appellant's grounds of appeal were not valid. The employer was not found liable for the injury suffered by the appellant, as the court held that the appellant was the author of his own misfortune.
The court was required to decide whether the trial judge had wrongly concluded that the appellant had only suffered a minor injury and whether the trial judge had erred in concluding that the appellant's depression was unrelated to the work incidents. Additionally, the court had to examine if the appellant's grounds of appeal were valid and if there was any error in the award of damages. The court also needed to determine if the employer was liable for the injury suffered by the appellant and if the appellant was the author of his own misfortune.
The court found that the grounds of appeal were not made out and that there was no error in the award of damages. The assessment of damages turned on the facts of the case. The court held that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the appellant suffered only a minor injury, as the appellant was the author of his own misfortune. The court also held that the trial judge did not err in concluding that the appellant's depression was unrelated to the work incidents. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
The Federal Court of Australia dismissed the appeal and affirmed the original decision, stating that there was no error in the award of damages. The court found that the assessment of damages turned on the specific facts of the case, and that the appellant's grounds of appeal were not valid. The employer was not found liable for the injury suffered by the appellant, as the court held that the appellant was the author of his own misfortune.
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.