El-Tarraf v Linknarf Ltd - [2003] NSWSC 1144

CITATION: El-Tarraf v Linknarf Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1144

HEARING DATE(S): 10, 11, 12, 14 February, 27, 29 October 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
8 December 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law Division

JUDGMENT OF: Studdert J

DECISION: I assess damages in the sum of $203,272.79. To afford the parties an opportunity to consider this judgment, the matter is to be relisted on 19 December 2003 to address the issues of interest, judgment and costs.

CATCHWORDS: Industrial accident - liability admitted - for assessment of damages only.

LEGISLATION CITED: Workers' Compensation Act, Pt 5, s 151G, 151L, 151M

PARTIES :
Joe El-Tarraf (Plaintiff)
Linknarf Limited (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 20162/99

COUNSEL: A.J. Bartley SC/C. Thompson (Plaintiff)
P.J. Deakin QC/P.J. Nolan (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Carroll & O'Dea (Plaintiff)
Sparke Helmore (Sydney) (Defendant)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

STUDDERT J

Monday 8 December 2003

20162/99 JOE EL-TARRAF v LINKNARF LIMITED
JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff, Joe El-Tarraf, claims damages from the defendant, Linknarf Limited (in liquidation), for injury allegedly sustained in the course of his employment with Franklins Limited on 4 April 1996. When the proceedings were commenced Franklins Limited was named as defendant, but there was a change of name and the company went into liquidation in May 2002. There being no objection by the liquidator, leave was granted by a registrar of the court for the plaintiff to proceed against Linknarf Limited (in liquidation).

2 As at 4 April 1996 the plaintiff was employed by Franklins as an assembler and picker. He claims to have injured his right knee when working at a loading dock in the country loading area. Because the trays of some of the trucks using the loading dock differed in height from the loading surface of the dock, metal plates called levellers were used to provide ramp access between the back of trucks to be loaded and the level of the dock when required. On 4 April 1996 there was difficulty with the truck the plaintiff was assisting to load in forcing the leveller employed down to the tray of the truck, and the plaintiff had to jump on it. His efforts were unsuccessful. Unbeknown to him, a truck driver jumped on the leveller behind him. The leveller went down and impacted with the tray of the truck, striking it very hard so that it went up and down twice. The plaintiff claimed that immediately he felt something wrong with his knee.

3 The plaintiff’s description of that event has not really been the subject of challenge and is to be accepted. The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is in negligence and at the outset the Court was informed that the matter was for assessment of damages only.

4 The nature of the injury which the plaintiff claims to have suffered is a torn lateral meniscus in the right knee. I shall shortly review the medical evidence in this case, but the plaintiff’s treating surgeon when cross examined agreed that a tear of the…

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 El-Tarraf v Linknarf Ltd

Details

AGLC: El-Tarraf v Linknarf Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1144
Case: [2003] NSWSC 1144
Decision Date: 8 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of El-Tarraf v Linknarf Ltd, the plaintiff, Mr. El-Tarraf, sought compensation for injuries sustained in an industrial accident at Linknarf Ltd's premises. Linknarf Ltd admitted liability for the accident, and the matter was before the court for the assessment of damages only. Mr. El-Tarraf claimed damages for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and the impact on his future earning capacity. The defendant acknowledged liability but contested the extent and valuation of the claimed damages.

The primary legal issue before the court was the quantification of damages. The court had to determine the reasonable and fair compensation for the various heads of loss claimed by Mr. El-Tarraf. This involved assessing the medical evidence, considering expert opinions on future medical needs and rehabilitation, and evaluating the impact on Mr. El-Tarraf's capacity to earn income in the future. Additionally, the court needed to address the defendant's arguments regarding the reasonableness of the claimed expenses and the appropriateness of the damages awarded.

The court evaluated the evidence presented and found that the plaintiff's claims were substantiated. The medical evidence supported the necessity of the treatments and the prognosis for ongoing care. Expert witnesses provided detailed assessments of the impact on Mr. El-Tarraf's earning capacity, which the court accepted as reasonable. The court also found that the expenses claimed were necessary and proportionate to the injuries sustained. After considering all the evidence, the court awarded Mr. El-Tarraf a comprehensive sum that reflected the totality of his losses, including both past and future damages. The court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, confirming the awarded compensation as just and equitable given the circumstances.

The final orders included the award of damages to Mr. El-Tarraf, encompassing his medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and the impact on his future earning capacity. The court determined the exact amount to be paid by Linknarf Ltd, ensuring that it covered all substantiated losses and provided appropriate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries and their long-term effects.

Orders