Appeal Outcome: Special leave application refused with costs by the High Court - 5 December 2008
New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: COOK v MIDPART PTY LTD trading as McDONALDS FORSTER & Anor [2008] NSWCA 151 HEARING DATE(S): 18 June 2008
JUDGMENT DATE:
27 June 2008JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Ipp JA at 64; Bell JA at 65 DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs CATCHWORDS: WORKERS COMPENSATION - meaning of phrase "aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of [a] disease" for ss4(b)(ii), 16(1)(b) and indirectly 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 - Meaning of "appeal ... by way of review" in s353 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 LEGISLATION CITED: Worker’s Compensation Act 1960
Workers Compensation Act 1987
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998CASES CITED: Commissioner for Railways v Bain (1965) 112 CLR 246
Darling Island Stevedoring & Lighterage Co Ltd v Hussey (1959) 102 CLR 482
Dayton v Coles Supermarkets Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCCR 26
Duinker v St Vincent de Paul Society Aged and Special Services Limited (Lewisham Nursing Home) [2008] NSWCA 127
Favelle Mort Ltd v Murray (1976) 133 CLR 580
Federal Broom Co Pty Limited v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Federal Broom Co Pty Limited v Semlitch [1964] NSWR 511
Jeffery v Lintipal Pty Limited [2008] NSWCA 138
Mercer v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (2000) 48 NSWLR 740
MGH Plastics v Zickar (1994) 34 NSWLR 617
Murray v Shillingsworth [2006] NSWCA 367; 68 NSWLR 451
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
State Transit Authority of New South Wales v Chemler [2007] NSWCA 249
Zickar v MGH Plastics (1996) 187 CLR 310PARTIES: Geoffrey Gordon COOK
MIDPART PTY LTD t/as McDONALDS FORSTER
GREAT LAKES AGGREGATES PTY LIMITEDFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40744/2007 COUNSEL: Appellant: B GMcManamey
1st Respondent: J Catsanos
2nd Respondent: P A RickardSOLICITORS: Appellant: Stacks The Law Firm, Forster
1st Respondent: Moray & Agnew
2nd Respondent: Goldberg SolicitorsLOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Workers Compensation Commission LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): WCC 1242/2007 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Handley ADP LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 2 October 2007
CA 40744/07
WCC 1242/07Friday 27 June 2008ALLSOP P
IPP JA
BELL JA
Geoffrey Gordon COOK v MIDPART PTY LTD trading as McDONALDS FORSTER and GREAT LAKES AGGREGATES PTY LTD
JUDGMENT
Introduction
ALLSOP P :
1 This is an appeal arising under s353 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (the WIM Act) raising issues under ss4(b)ii), 9A and 16(1) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) (the WC Act).
2 The terms of ss4(b)(ii), 9A and 16(1) of the WC Act that are relevant to this appeal are as follows:
- 4 .
In this Act:
injury :
….
- (b) includes:
- (ii) the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of any disease, where the employment was a contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration, and
- 9A (1) No compensation is payable under this Act in respect of…
Continue reading Cook v Midpart Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Cook v Midpart Pty Ltd T/As McDonalds Forster & Anor [2008] NSWCA 151
- Case
- [2008] NSWCA 151
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned the interpretation of provisions within the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) and the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998* (NSW). The dispute revolved around the meaning of the phrase "aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of [a] disease" as it applied to certain sections of the 1987 Act, and the nature of an "appeal by way of review" under the 1998 Act. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issues before the court were: first, to determine the correct construction of the phrase "aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of [a] disease" in the context of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*, particularly in relation to claims for compensation; and second, to clarify the meaning and scope of an "appeal by way of review" as provided for in section 353 of the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998*.
The Court of Appeal considered the established legal principles governing the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to workers compensation. It analysed the language of the relevant sections and their intended purpose within the legislative framework. The court ultimately found that the appeal was without merit, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
The primary legal issues before the court were: first, to determine the correct construction of the phrase "aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration of [a] disease" in the context of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*, particularly in relation to claims for compensation; and second, to clarify the meaning and scope of an "appeal by way of review" as provided for in section 353 of the *Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998*.
The Court of Appeal considered the established legal principles governing the interpretation of statutory provisions relating to workers compensation. It analysed the language of the relevant sections and their intended purpose within the legislative framework. The court ultimately found that the appeal was without merit, leading to the dismissal of the proceedings. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs
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.