JUDGE:	RUSH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 March 2014
DATE OF RULING:	28 March 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Cairns v Trowelcoat Pty Ltd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 129

---

ACCIDENT COMPENSATION – admission sought after receipt of workers compensation – whether acceptance of Workcover claim form founds request by the plaintiff that the defendant admit it has paid and continues to pay the plaintiff’s medical and like expenses – injury arising out of or in the course of employment – Accident Compensation Act 1985 ss 82(1) and 99(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Mr J. Mighell SC with Ms M. Pilipasidis	Maurice Blackburn
For the Defendant	Mr R. Middleton SC with Mr D. Seeman	Herbert Geer

HIS HONOUR:

During the course of re-examination of the plaintiff, Mr Mighell SC, Senior Counsel for the plaintiff, led from the plaintiff that in September 2007 he had signed and submitted a Workcover Claim Form (marked as exhibit “PX-1”) (“Claim Form”) which had been accepted by the defendant. This evidence was led without objection. Mr Mighell then asked the plaintiff: “Have they continued to pay your medical expenses …?” The question was not finished. Mr Middleton SC, Senior Counsel for the defendant, objected on the basis that “medicals are not relevant to this proceeding”. The question was not pursued by Mr Mighell.

Prior to closing the plaintiff’s case, Mr Mighell sought an admission from the defendant in the following terms:

“That in furtherance of the acceptance of the Workcover claim, the defendant has paid and continues to pay the plaintiff’s medical and like expenses”.

Mr Mighell said he wished to use the admission as a basis for inviting the jury to infer that the plaintiff suffered injury in the course and scope of his employment.

The issue was of some significance as the defendant at trial alleged that the plaintiff’s injury arose not while working for the defendant on Thursday 9 August 2007, but rather on Saturday 11 August 2007 when the defendant alleges the plaintiff was undertaking contracting work unrelated to his employment.

The defendant resisted the admission. As Mr Middleton was ill on the day the plaintiff’s case was closed, argument was deferred until the following day, 18 March 2014. I heard argument both prior to and after the defendant had closed its case and ruled the plaintiff was entitled to the admission sought. So as not to delay the jury trial, I said I would publish my reasons at a later date.

Mr Middleton contended that:

(a)it was not unusual to seek such an admission in a serious injury application, but such admissions were not sought in damages actions at common law;
(b)the employer did not believe the plaintiff suffered injury in the course of his employment and thus he said it was…

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.

Continue reading Cairns v Trowelcoat Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Cairns v Trowelcoat Pty Ltd [2014] VSC 129
Case: [2014] VSC 129
Decision Date: 28 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cairns v Trowelcoat Pty Ltd was a case before the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to admit certain facts regarding medical expenses paid as a result of an injury sustained during employment. The dispute centred around whether the acceptance of a Workcover claim form by the defendant constituted a request by the plaintiff that the defendant admit it has paid and continues to pay the plaintiff's medical and similar expenses. The key legal issues involved the interpretation of sections 82(1) and 99(1) of the Accident Compensation Act 1985, specifically whether the acceptance of a Workcover claim form by the defendant founded a request by the plaintiff for an admission concerning the payment of medical expenses.

The court considered the language of the relevant sections of the Act and the procedural context in which the Workcover claim form was accepted. It was noted that the purpose of the Act is to facilitate the prompt payment of compensation for work-related injuries, and the acceptance of the claim form was seen as an administrative step rather than a request for an admission. The court concluded that the acceptance of the claim form did not, in itself, constitute a request by the plaintiff for an admission of liability for ongoing medical expenses. The court found that the plaintiff needed to make a specific request for an admission under the Act, and the acceptance of the claim form did not meet this requirement.

In light of its findings, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for an order compelling the defendant to admit the requested facts. The court emphasised the need for clarity in the procedural steps required to make a request for an admission under the Accident Compensation Act 1985. The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's application be dismissed, with no orders as to costs.

Orders