Brien v Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd - [2010] WADC 79

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BRIEN -v- HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD [2010] WADC 79

CORAM: DEANE DCJ

HEARD: 6 JULY 2009

DELIVERED : 31 MAY 2010

FILE NO/S: CIV 1295 of 2007

BETWEEN: CHANDELLE BRIEN
Plaintiff
AND
HAMERSLEY IRON PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 - Whether s 175 of the Act applies in relation to s 23 of the Act - Meaning of the concept of compensation is payable

Legislation:

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981

Result:

Plaintiff's argument on preliminary issue dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr S A Millman
Defendant: Mr G R Hancy

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Slater & Gordon
Defendant: DLA Phillips Fox

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

Mokta v Metro Meat International [2005] WASCA 143
Re Monger; Ex parte Velsberry Pty Ltd [2003] WASCA 9

DEANE DCJ: At the outset in this matter it should be noted that the parties, pursuant to a minute of consent order dated 6 July 2009, agreed the plaintiff have leave to amend the writ of summons to substitute Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd as the defendant in lieu of Pilbara Iron Pty Ltd. The matter did not proceed to trial on 6 July 2009 as there was a preliminary issue to be determined given that the defendant disputes that the plaintiff has a rightful claim to compensation for damages for personal injury in the District Court of Western Australia. Flowing from this a core issue arises, namely whether for the purposes of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 ("the Act") compensation was payable to the plaintiff in Western Australia following an alleged injury sustained by the plaintiff at work on 25 August 2004. At the commencement of the hearing counsel for the defendant advised the court that the appropriate reprint of the relevant legislation was that dated 14 September 2001. The date is significant as there were substantial changes to the relevant legislation following that date, including a change impacting upon the manner in which one approaches a claim for compensation in Western Australia in a situation where the claimant may also have been able to claim compensation in another state.
The defendant's position is that s 175 of the Act applies in relation to s 93B of the Act. The plaintiff argues that s 23 of the Act applies so as to dislodge the application of s 175 of the Act with respect to s 93B of the Act. Essentially the plaintiff's argument is that as workers compensation was never paid to the plaintiff in Western Australia but was paid to her in Victoria, s 23 of the Act which applied at the time (given it has since been amended) has the effect that workers compensation was not payable to the plaintiff.
In order to invoke Div 2 of Pt IV of the Act which contains constraints on claims for damages at common law, compensation has to be payable. The argument for the plaintiff is put that if…

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 Brien v Hamersley Iron 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: [2010] WADC 79
Decision Date: 31 MAY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Brien v Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd was heard by the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland. The dispute arose when Mr. Brien sought compensation for injuries sustained during his employment with Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd. The central issue before the court was whether section 175 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 applied to the interpretation of section 23 of the Act, specifically regarding the meaning of the concept "compensation is payable". Hamersley Iron argued that section 175 should not be applied to interpret section 23, whereas Mr. Brien contended that it should be used to determine the scope of compensation.

The court needed to interpret the relationship between sections 175 and 23 of the Act. Section 175 outlines provisions related to the payment of compensation, while section 23 deals with the circumstances under which compensation is payable. The court had to determine whether the interpretation of compensation in section 175 could be used to understand section 23. The court considered the legislative context and the plain meaning of the terms used in both sections. It also examined case law and statutory interpretation principles to resolve the dispute.

After thorough analysis, the court concluded that section 175 does indeed apply to the interpretation of section 23. The court found that the concept of "compensation is payable" in section 23 should be interpreted in accordance with the provisions outlined in section 175. This interpretation was based on the principle that the Act should be read as a whole and that the specific provisions of section 175 provide a clear framework for understanding the broader concept of compensation. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Brien, finding that section 175 is applicable to section 23.

The final orders of the court were that Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd must compensate Mr. Brien for the injuries sustained during his employment, in accordance with the interpretation of section 23 as guided by section 175 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981.

Orders