Broom v IPA Personnel Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No S APCI 2009 3823

NICOLE BROOM	Appellant
	v
IPA PERSONNEL PTY LTD	Respondent

---

JUDGES	ASHLEY, NEAVE and TATE JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	8 November 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT	8 November 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 295
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Broom v IPA Personnel Pty Ltd (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Campton, 28 July 2009)

---

Accident Compensation – Appeal from unsuccessful application made under s 134AB(16)(b), Accident Compensation Act 1985 – Judge’s finding that compensable injury sustained – Whether that injury was serious in its consequences – Whether judge erred in not finding that appellant suffered other compensable injury – Whether reasons of primary judge adequate to disclose path of reasoning – Appeal dismissed – No point of general principle.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A D B Ingram  and Mr N R Dubrow	Clark Toop & Taylor
For the Respondent	Mr M F Wheelahan, SC and Mr M D Rush	Herbert Geer

ASHLEY JA:

1. Nicole Broom, a lady born 18 September 1973, was employed as a picker and packer at Pacific Brands between November 2000 and July 2005.  She undertook repetitive work, bending, stretching and lifting, in order to locate and then pack boxes of shoes.  She last worked on a regular basis in March 2005.  She formally terminated her employment in July that year.  She ceased work because of disability of her lumbar and lumbosacral spine, most particularly at the L4/5 and L5-S1 levels, with a major disc protrusion at L5-S1.

1. The damage to which I have referred progressed to the point of cauda equina compression by 2007.  It required remedial surgery which was conducted on 9 November that year.  The surgery had a certain beneficial effect, but left Ms Broom with continuing consequences.  We were told from the Bar table today, by appellant's counsel, that her condition has deteriorated in more recent times.  That does not affect the matters requiring our determination, because it has never been in issue that the appellant's injuries and their consequences are serious, both as to pain and suffering and as to loss of earning capacity.

An application is made

1. Although Ms Broom was employed at Pacific Brands, her employers were sequentially three labour hire companies – Challenge Recruitment in the period November 2000 to May 2001;  IPA Personnel (the present respondent) in the period May 2001 to 14 November 2004, and Integrated Group Limited in the period 15  November 2004 to 4 July 2005. 

1. By originating motion filed 4 December 2006 the appellant sought leave to bring proceedings for damages against Challenge, IPA, Integrated Group and, as I understand it, Pacific Brands, pursuant to s 134AB(16)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985 (which I shall call ‘the Act’).

1. The application came on for hearing before a judge in the County Court on 13 May 2009.  Ms Broom did not pursue her claim against either Challenge or Pacific Brands.  She settled with Integrated, which agreed…