Cripps v Machos Pty Ltd - [2017] TASSC 21

[2017] TASSC 21

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Cripps v Machos Pty Ltd [2017] TASSC 21

PARTIES:  CRIPPS, Richard John
  v
  MACHOS PTY LTD

FILE NO: 3003/2016
DECISION

APPEALED FROM: C v Machos Pty Ltd t/as Nu-Jet [2016] TASWRCT 29

DELIVERED ON:  31 March 2017
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  22 March 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Assessment and amount of compensation – Weekly payments – Partial incapacity – Particular cases – Claim of total incapacity rejected – Possibility of liability on basis of partial incapacity not considered.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s 69.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [385]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  R Grueber
             Respondent:  I L Hallett
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Ogilvie Jennings
             Respondent:  Page Seager Lawyers

Judgment Number: [2017] TASSC 21
Number of paragraphs: 20

Serial No 21/2017
File No LCA 3003/2016

RICHARD JOHN CRIPPS v MACHOS PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

31 March 2017

This is an appeal by a worker named Richard Cripps. On 14 December 2012 in the course of his employment by the respondent, Machos Pty Ltd, he was attempting to lift a heavy steel grate when he suffered an injury which affected his lower back. He subsequently claimed compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"). A dispute arose as to a number of issues, including his eligibility for weekly payments of compensation. That dispute proceeded to a hearing before the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, constituted by its then Chief Commissioner, Mr S R Carey. He did not accept that the worker had established that the employer was liable to make weekly payments of compensation, and dismissed the reference to the Tribunal: C v Machos Pty Ltd t/as Nu-Jet [2016] TASWRCT 29. This is an appeal from that determination.
In his determination the learned Chief Commissioner made findings to the following effect:
·     He found that the worker had suffered an injury to his lower back in the course of his employment on 14 December 2012, and that that injury was a muscular strain or sprain.
· He found that the worker had not given notice of the injury as soon as practicable after its occurrence as required by s 32 of the Act, but that that failure was occasioned by a reasonable cause with the result that, by virtue of s 37 of the Act, the worker's right to claim compensation was not affected.
·     He was satisfied that a condition affecting the worker's left hip became the primary cause of any ongoing incapacity by early 2014, and that that hip condition resulted in the worker becoming totally incapacitated, but did not accept that that condition resulted from the worker's injury suffered on 14 December 2012.
·     He determined that the worker was never totally incapacitated as a result of that injury.
The worker does not seek to challenge any of those conclusions, but contends that the learned Chief Commissioner erred in…

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 Cripps v Machos Pty Ltd 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: [2017] TASSC 21
Decision Date: 31 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cripps versus Machos Pty Ltd was heard in the Workers Compensation Court of Australia. The dispute revolved around the assessment and amount of compensation owed to Mr. Cripps, who claimed to have suffered a partial incapacity due to an injury sustained during his employment with Machos Pty Ltd. Mr. Cripps sought weekly payments for the period of his incapacity and argued that he was completely incapacitated. The defendants, Machos Pty Ltd, denied that Mr. Cripps was fully incapacitated and argued that his incapacity was only partial, if it existed at all.

The central legal issue in the case was the extent of Mr. Cripps's incapacity and the corresponding amount of compensation he was entitled to receive. The court was required to determine whether Mr. Cripps was fully incapacitated, partially incapacitated, or not incapacitated at all. Additionally, the court had to consider the possibility of liability on the basis of partial incapacity, which was not initially addressed by the defendants. The court had to weigh the evidence presented by both parties and make a determination based on the facts and the relevant legal principles.

In delivering its decision, the court found that Mr. Cripps had indeed suffered some degree of incapacity due to his injury, but it was not total incapacity as he had claimed. The court held that the possibility of liability on the basis of partial incapacity had not been adequately considered by the defendants. Consequently, the court decided to remit the case back to the original tribunal for reconsideration of the possibility of partial incapacity and to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for Mr. Cripps based on that assessment. The court did not make a final decision on the amount of compensation but provided guidance on the factors that should be taken into account in the redetermination of the case.

Orders