Legal Research
Cases
Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller

Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller

Case [2018] WASCA 55 2 May 2018

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   ENGINE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT PTY LTD -v- MILLER [2018] WASCA 55
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
MITCHELL JA
BEECH JA

HEARD:   5 APRIL 2018
DELIVERED          :   2 MAY 2018
FILE NO/S:   CACV 69 of 2017
BETWEEN:   ENGINE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
RONALD CRAIG MILLER
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   SCOTT DCJ
Citation: ENGINE PROTECTION EQUIPMENT PTY LTD -v- MILLER [2017] WADC 71
File Number             :   APP 98 of 2016

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Worker suffered knee injury resulting in incapacity for work - Worker in receipt of weekly payments - Subsequently worker suffered back injury - Incapacity for work materially contributed to by both injuries - Whether arbitrator erred in finding that after prescribed amount for knee injury was exhausted the worker was entitled to further compensation payments for the back injury

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 18, s 21, sch 1 cl 7

Result:

Appeal dismissed
Leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr D R Clyne
Respondent	:	Mr N F Morrissey

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	SRB Legal
Respondent	:	Foyle Legal

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

Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266
Cole v P & O Ports Ltd [2002] WASCA 157
Commonwealth v Butler [1958] HCA 56; (1958) 102 CLR 465
Dawkins v Metropolitan Coal Co Ltd (1947) 75 CLR 169
Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller [2017] WADC 71
Evans v Oakdale Navigation Collieries Ltd [1940] 1 KB 702
Johnson v Denwest Nominees Pty Ltd t/as Cunderdin Roadhouse [2017] WASCA 200
Kanowna Belle Goldmines v Feierabend [2003] WASCA 246
Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452
Leggett v Argyle Diamond Mines Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 182
Mitchell v Canal Rocks Beach Resort [2002] WASCA 331
Napier v BHP Billiton (Worsley Alumina) Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 230; (2015) 49 WAR 243
Rosmini v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1973) 6 SASR 212
Ward v Corrimal‑Balgownie Collieries Ltd (1938) 61 CLR 120
Wheatley v Lambton, Hetton and Joicey Collieries Ltd [1937] 2 KB 426

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Introduction

The appellant (the employer) seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the primary judge[1] dismissing an appeal against a decision of an arbitrator. The arbitrator determined that the respondent (the worker) was entitled to compensation in the form of weekly payments for total incapacity for his back injury, for the periods sought by the worker.
[1] Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller [2017] WADC 71 (primary reasons).
In essence, the employer contends that the arbitrator erred in law in failing to focus on which of the two injuries suffered by the worker, namely the back injury and an earlier knee injury, was the true cause of the worker's incapacity. In our view, the arbitrator was correct not to seek to identify the 'true cause' of the worker's…

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 Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller

Details

AGLC: Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller [2018] WASCA 55
Case: [2018] WASCA 55
Decision Date: 2 MAY 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute arose between Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd and Mr Miller, an employee who had suffered a knee injury during the course of his employment, resulting in a period of incapacity for work. Following this, Mr Miller was receiving weekly payments from his employer under the workers' compensation scheme. Subsequently, Mr Miller suffered a back injury, which also resulted in a period of incapacity for work. The key issue before the court was whether the arbitrator had erred in determining that, after the prescribed amount for the knee injury had been exhausted, Mr Miller was entitled to further compensation payments for the back injury. This hinged on whether the incapacity for work from the back injury was materially contributed to by the pre-existing knee injury.

The court examined the relevant provisions of the relevant workers' compensation legislation and case law. It found that the arbitrator had correctly applied the principles of cumulative liability, which allows for compensation to be awarded where the incapacity for work is materially contributed to by more than one injury. The court held that the arbitrator had properly considered the evidence and made findings that the back injury resulted in incapacity for work that was materially contributed to by the pre-existing knee injury. Therefore, the arbitrator was correct in finding that Mr Miller was entitled to further compensation payments for the back injury after the prescribed amount for the knee injury had been exhausted.

The court further held that the employer's argument that the back injury was not compensable because it was not solely attributable to the employment was not supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the arbitrator's decision was not erroneous and affirmed the decision. The court ordered that the employer pay the further compensation payments to Mr Miller for the back injury.

Orders