BLOOMFIELD -v- LIEBHERR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2007] WASCA 154

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 154
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:81/2006	Heard:	9 MARCH 2007
Coram:	STEYTLER P WHEELER JA PULLIN JA	Delivered:	20/07/07
No of pages:	23	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ERIC WAYNE BLOOMFIELD LIEBHERR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Determination of degree of disability Whether Review Officer or Compensation Magistrate misdirected themselves as to the law Turns on own facts
Legislation:	Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 59 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93E(10), s 25, s 84ZN(2), s 84ZW
Case References:	BHP Billiton Ltd v Gomes [2007] WASCA 140 Casserly v Alcoa of Australia Ltd [2006] WASCA 150 Eclipse Resources v Jarrad Reeves, unreported; CM-42/04; 13 September 2004 Girrawheen Tavern v Josephs [2003] WASCA 244 Hart v Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd [2005] WASCA 130 Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BLOOMFIELD -v- LIEBHERR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD [2007] WASCA 154 CORAM : STEYTLER P

WHEELER JA

PULLIN JA

HEARD : 9 MARCH 2007 DELIVERED : 20 JULY 2007 FILE NO/S : CACV 81 of 2006 BETWEEN : ERIC WAYNE BLOOMFIELD

Appellant

AND

LIEBHERR AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COMPENSATION MAGISTRATES COURT

Coram : MS P M HOGAN CM

File No : CM 129 of 2005

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Determination of degree of disability - Whether Review Officer or Compensation Magistrate misdirected themselves as to the law - Turns on own facts

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA), s 59

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93E(10), s 25, s 84ZN(2), s 84ZW

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R I Viner QC & Mr C L Phillips

Respondent : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chris Phillips

Respondent : Crisp Civitella Smith

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

BHP Billiton Ltd v Gomes [2007] WASCA 140
Casserly v Alcoa of Australia Ltd [2006] WASCA 150
Eclipse Resources v Jarrad Reeves, unreported; CM-42/04; 13 September 2004
Girrawheen Tavern v Josephs [2003] WASCA 244
Hart v Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd [2005] WASCA 130
Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253

(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER P: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Pullin JA. It is consequently unnecessary for me to repeat the detail of the circumstances giving rise to this appeal.

2 The appellant lodged three Form 22 referrals under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) ("Act"), as it was then known. These claimed that he had sustained permanent work-related disabilities. Two of the forms described these as "mental function" (by which he meant loss of mental function), skin disorder and fatigue. The third described these as "mental…

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 Bloomfield v Liebherr Australia 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: [2007] WASCA 154
Decision Date: 20 JULY 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute in Bloomfield v Liebherr Australia Pty Ltd was between the appellant, a former employee, and the respondent, an employer. The issue at hand was the determination of the degree of the appellant's disability and the subsequent workers' compensation he was entitled to. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Review Officer or the Compensation Magistrate had erred in their assessment of the degree of disability. The appellant argued that the Review Officer and the Compensation Magistrate had misdirected themselves in law by failing to properly apply the relevant legislative criteria in determining the degree of disability. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the decision-makers had correctly applied the law and that the determination of the degree of disability was within their discretion.

The court found that the Review Officer and the Compensation Magistrate had not misdirected themselves in law. They correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and had sufficient evidence before them to make their determinations. The court found that the decision-makers had properly assessed the evidence and applied the correct legal principles in coming to their conclusions about the degree of disability. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal.

The final order of the court was to dismiss the appeal brought by the appellant against the determination of the degree of disability and the workers' compensation awarded. The court held that the Review Officer and the Compensation Magistrate had correctly applied the law and that the determination of the degree of disability was within their discretion.

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.