Cole v P & O Ports Ltd

Case [2002] WASCA 157

COLE -v- P & O PORTS LTD [2002] WASCA 157



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2002] WASCA 157
THE FULL COURT (WA)13/06/2002
Case No:CIV:1573/200224 MAY 2002
Coram:WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
WHEELER J		24/05/02
10Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Application for leave to appeal refused
B
PDF Version
Parties:MICHAEL SHAUN COLE
P & O PORTS LTD

Catchwords:
Workers' compensation
Worker suffered knee injury at work
Therapy included cycling
Worker fell off bicycle and injured shoulder
Whether resulting incapacity caused by disability to knee

Legislation:
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 5, s 18, sch 1

Case References:
Leggett v Argyle Diamonds Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 182
Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452
Korragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452
Lindeman Ltd v Colvin (1946) 74 CLR 313
March v Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Rosmini v Chrysler (1973) 6 SASR 212
Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40
Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : COLE -v- P & O PORTS LTD [2002] WASCA 157 CORAM : WALLWORK J
    MURRAY J
    WHEELER J
HEARD : 24 MAY 2002 DELIVERED : 24 MAY 2002 PUBLISHED : 13 JUNE 2002 FILE NO/S : CIV 1573 of 2002 BETWEEN : MICHAEL SHAUN COLE
    Applicant

    AND

    P & O PORTS LTD
    Respondent



Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Worker suffered knee injury at work - Therapy included cycling - Worker fell off bicycle and injured shoulder - Whether resulting incapacity caused by disability to knee




Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 5, s 18, sch 1



(Page 2)

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused




Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    Applicant : Mr L Gandini
    Respondent : No appearance


Solicitors:

    Applicant : Chapmans Lawyers
    Respondent : No appearance



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

Leggett v Argyle Diamonds Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 182
Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452
Lindeman Ltd v Colvin (1946) 74 CLR 313
March v Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Rosmini v Chrysler (1973) 6 SASR 212
Western Australia v Bond Corporation Holding Ltd (1991) 5 WAR 40

Case(s) also cited:



Nil

(Page 3)

1 WALLWORK J: The facts and issues in this matter appear from the reasons for judgment of Murray and Wheeler JJ.

2 As their Honours state, the applicant suffered a knee injury in the course of his employment with the respondent. He was paid workers' compensation whilst he was away from work due to the injury. The treatment for the applicant's knee injury included a course of physiotherapy. Part of the programme recommended to him was bicycle riding.

3 On 19 September 2000 the applicant fell off the bicycle he was riding as part of the recommended exercise programme. He suffered an injury to his right…

Continue reading Cole v P & O Ports Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cole v P & O Ports Ltd [2002] WASCA 157
Case
[2002] WASCA 157
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cole v P & O Ports Ltd was before the court to determine whether the applicant, who suffered a knee injury at work, was entitled to compensation for a subsequent shoulder injury sustained while cycling as part of his therapy. The applicant argued that the resulting incapacity was caused by the disability to his knee. The court had to decide whether the shoulder injury was a separate injury for which compensation could be claimed, or if it was causally linked to the initial knee injury.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the shoulder injury sustained by the applicant while cycling was a separate injury for which he could claim compensation, or if it was a consequence of the initial knee injury, thereby rendering it part of the original disability for which compensation had already been paid. The court was required to interpret the relevant workers' compensation legislation to determine if the applicant's subsequent incapacity was a result of the initial knee injury, or if it constituted a distinct and compensable event.

The court found that the shoulder injury was not a consequence of the disability caused by the initial knee injury. It held that the incapacity resulting from the shoulder injury was not causally linked to the knee injury, and therefore constituted a separate injury for which compensation could be claimed. The court emphasised that for the shoulder injury to be considered part of the original disability, there must be a direct causal connection between the incapacity and the initial knee injury, which was not present in this case. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal refused

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.