Booth v Fourmeninapub Pty Ltd

Case [2020] NSWCA 57

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Booth v Fourmeninapub Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 57
Hearing dates: 23 March 2020
Decision date: 02 April 2020
Before: Bell P at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
White JA at [62].
Decision:

1. Notice of motion filed 12 December 2019 dismissed, with costs.
2. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

Catchwords:

APPEAL - further evidence - special grounds - whether further evidence relevant to appeal confined to question of law - whether further evidence not obtainable with reasonable diligence - Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A(8)

WORKERS COMPENSATION - appeal from Workers Compensation Commission constituted by President - appeal confined to question of law - whether President erred in disregarding evidence of psychiatrist - distinction between identifying meaning of expert report and evaluating evidence - whether predisposition to bipolar disorder itself a disease which could be aggravated, accelerated, exacerbated or deteriorated during employment - definition of injury in (former) s 4(b)(ii) of Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), considered
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 75A
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 4
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 74, 352, 353, 354
Cases Cited: Akins v National Australia Bank (1994) 34 NSWLR 155
Asioty v Canberra Abattoir Pty Ltd (1989) 167 CLR 533; [1989] HCA 40
Commissioner for Railways v Bain (1965) 112 CLR 246; [1965] HCA 5
Culver v Sekulich 344 P 2d 146 (Wyo, 1959)
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626; [1964] HCA 34
Ferella v Chief Commissioner of State Revenue [2014] NSWCA 378
Fourmeninapub Pty Ltd v Booth [2019] NSWWCCPD 25
Pacific National Pty Ltd v Baldacchino [2018] NSWCA 281
Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1984] 2 NSWLR 505
Paric v John Holland (Constructions) Pty Ltd [1985] HCA 58; 59 ALJR 844
Rodriguez v Telstra Corp Ltd [2002] FCA 30; 66 ALD 579
Schwartz Family Co Pty Ltd v Capitol Carpets Pty Ltd [2017] NSWCA 223
Searle v Commonwealth of Australia (2019) 100 NSWLR 55; [2019] NSWCA 127
Texts Cited: M Black, “Genetics in the Courtroom” (2003) 26(3) UNSWLJ 755
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Lynette Booth (Appellant)
Fourmeninapub Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
M J Cranitch SC, S Blount and T L Wong (Appellant)
L D Robison and T C Jackson (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Somerville Laundry Lomax (Appellant)
BBW Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/207627
Publication restriction: Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Workers Compensation Commission
Jurisdiction:
Presidential Decision
Citation:
[2019] NSWCCPD 25
Date of Decision:
6 June 2019
Before:
President Judge Phillips
File Number(s):
A1-4546/18

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the decision]

The appellant, who worked in a hotel, suffered a primary psychological injury, manifesting itself as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, as a result of a traumatic incident she witnessed at work in November 2002. At the end of that month, the appellant ceased working at the hotel. Some two…

Continue reading Booth v Fourmeninapub Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Booth v Fourmeninapub Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 57
Case
[2020] NSWCA 57
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Booth (the appellant) appealed to the Supreme Court of New South Wales against a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission. The dispute concerned a claim for workers compensation, where the appellant sought to rely on further evidence in the appeal, which the respondent, Fourmeninapub Pty Ltd, opposed.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the further evidence sought to be adduced by the appellant was relevant to an appeal confined to a question of law, and whether that evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the original hearing. Additionally, the Court considered whether the President of the Workers Compensation Commission erred in disregarding the evidence of a psychiatrist, and whether a predisposition to bipolar disorder constituted a disease that could be aggravated, accelerated, exacerbated, or deteriorated during employment, within the meaning of the former section 4(b)(ii) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW).

The Court distinguished between the task of identifying the meaning of an expert report and the task of evaluating the evidence contained within it. It held that the further evidence was not relevant to a question of law and could have been obtained with reasonable diligence. The Court found that the President had not erred in his approach to the psychiatrist's evidence, and that a predisposition to bipolar disorder, in itself, was not an injury under the Act.

Consequently, the notice of motion seeking to adduce further evidence was dismissed, and the appeal itself was also dismissed, both with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Notice of motion filed 12 December 2019 dismissed, with costs.

2. Appeal dismissed, with costs.

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.