Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd v Mathiassen, Peter Edward - [1997] FCA 1525

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Consideration by Administrative Appeals Tribunal of claim for compensation under the Seafarers’ Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992 - whether finding of injury and consequential incapacity by Tribunal open to it having regard to the medical evidence - whether Tribunal made findings inconsistent with findings of injury and incapacity

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 44.
Seafarers’ Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992, ss 26, 28.

BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LIMITED v PETER MATHIASSEN

DAVIES, MOORE, EMMETT JJ
23 DECEMBER 1997
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 708 of 1997

On appeal from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LIMITED
Appellant

AND:

PETER MATHIASSEN
Respondent

JUDGES:

DAVIES, MOORE, EMMETT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

23 DECEMBER 1997

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal is dismissed.
The Applicant pay the Respondent’s costs.

NOTE:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 708 of 1997

On Appeal from a single Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

BETWEEN:

BROKEN HILL PROPRIETARY COMPANY LIMITED
APPELLANT

AND:

PETER EDWARD MATHIASSEN
RESPONDENT

CORAM:

DAVIES, MOORE & EMMETT JJ

DATE:

23 DECEMBER 1997

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Davies J: I have had an opportunity to read the reasons for judgment prepared by Moore J. I agree with the views expressed by his Honour but would add a few words of my own.

A vital finding of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was as follows:

"64. Notwithstanding the evidence of Dr Tooth, the fact remains that the Applicant has a vulnerable right shoulder which precludes him from undertaking heavy work, and in particular, it precludes him from returning to his work as a seaman. His shoulder was not vulnerable before the accident of 17 April 1994. Notwithstanding that it is now not the source of his ongoing symptoms, the residual underlying condition in his right shoulder, however defined, on the weight of the medical evidence, precludes the Applicant from continuing to undertake heavy work and, in particular, his pre-injury work."

On 17 April 1994, Mr Mathiassen had a fall while working on the "Iron Dampier". He injured his right shoulder and aggravated a condition of cervical spondylosis in his neck. As a result, he suffered pain in the shoulder and referred pain from the cervical spondylosis down through his right shoulder and arm to his fingers.

On 22 December 1994, a general medical practitioner, Dr Evans, reported that Mr Mathiassen was "now fit for duty". However, on 12 January 1995, the treating surgeon, Dr R M Tooth, reported:

"I think he would be fit for limited duties including onboard ship provided it does not include lifting heavy lines, climbing ladders and cranes, etc. Whether such work is available is another question."
On 2 May 1995, Dr Tooth reported:

"His present disability is predominantly due…

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 Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd v Mathiassen, Peter Edward 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: [1997] FCA 1525
Decision Date: 23 DECEMBER 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd v Mathiassen involved a dispute over whether the respondent, Peter Mathiassen, was entitled to compensation for a work-related injury to his right shoulder under the Seafarers’ Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992. Mathiassen, a seaman, had previously injured his right shoulder in 1991, for which he received compensation and underwent surgery. In April 1994, he had another fall at work on the "Iron Dampier," resulting in further injury to his right shoulder. The appellant, Broken Hill Proprietary Company Limited (BHP), the owner of the "Iron Dampier," initially paid compensation to Mathiassen until 22 December 1994 but then stopped, claiming that his incapacity did not arise from the April 1994 injury. Mathiassen applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) for a review of this decision.

The AAT found that Mathiassen had indeed suffered a work-related injury to his right shoulder in April 1994 and was entitled to compensation and medical treatment from 22 December 1994. BHP appealed the AAT's decision to the Federal Court, which was subsequently dismissed. BHP then appealed to the Full Court.

The Full Court examined whether the AAT had erred in its findings, particularly focusing on the evidence provided by various medical practitioners. The Court found that the AAT's conclusion that Mathiassen's right shoulder injury from the April 1994 fall precluded him from undertaking heavy work, including his pre-injury work as a seaman, was supported by the evidence. The Court also noted that the AAT's finding that Mathiassen had a "vulnerable right shoulder" was not inconsistent with the evidence, particularly the opinion of Dr Conrad, who indicated that Mathiassen had sustained a capsular tear to his right shoulder joint capsule due to the 1994 accident. The Court held that the AAT's conclusion that Mathiassen was incapacitated due to his right shoulder injury was justified and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Orders