Global Insulation Contractors (NSW) Pty Ltd v Keating - [2012] NTSC 4

Global Insulation Contractors (NSW) P/L v Keating [2012] NTSC 04
PARTIES: GLOBAL INSULATION CONTRACTORS (NSW) P/L

v
KEATING, Ronald William

TITLE OF COURT:   SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:   SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FILE NO:   LA No 4 of 2011 (20910638)
DELIVERED:   13 January 2012
HEARING DATES:   30, 31 August 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   BLOKLAND J
APPEAL FROM:   Ms Morris SM
CATCHWORDS:

WORKERS COMPENSATION – Appeal against findings and orders made by Work Health Court – whether notice of injury was given – definition of injury – whether worker can rely on injury simpliciter when associated with disease – whether injury occurred in the course of employment – whether claim time barred – most profitable employment
APPEAL DISMISSED
Nature of appeal from Work Health Court – adequacy of reasons

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act s 3, s 4, s 4(6A), s 4(8), s 53, s 53(1), s 64, s 65, s 65(2)(b), s 73, s 80, s 80(1), s 81, s 81(1)(c), s 81(1)(d), s 116(1), s 182(3)
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation (1992) 173 CLR 473; Milmi Community v Wolstercroft (NT) Pty Ltd [1997] NTSC; Sun Alliance Insurance Ltd v Massoud (1989) VR 8; applied
Kennedy Cleaning Services (Pty Ltd) v Petkoska (2000) 200 CLR 286; Maddalozzo v Maddick (1992) 108 FLR 159; Thompson v Groote Eylandt Mining Co Ltd (2003) 173 FLR 72; Van Dongen v Northern Territory of Australia (2005) 16 NTLR 169; Waylexson Pty Ltd t/as Peterson Earthmoving Repairs v Clarke (2010) 25 NTLR 168; Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd (1996) 187 CLR 310; followed

Collector of Customs v Pozzolanic Enterprises Pty Ltd (1993) 43 FCR 280; Danvers v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1969) 122 CLR 529; Hayes v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 96 CLR 47; Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1; Hicks v Bridgestone Australia Limited NT(CA) 29 May 1997 (unreported) No AP 5 of 1996; HWE Contracting Pty Ltd v Young (2007) 20 NTLR 83; Rothwell v BAE Systems Australia Limited [2011] NTMC 039; Young v HWE ContractingPty Ltd [2006] NTMC 63; referred to
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:   Mr Crawley
Respondent:   Mr McConnel
Solicitors:
Appellant:   Cridlands MB
Respondent:   Ward Keller
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID Number:   BLO 1202
Number of pages:   46

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Global Insulation Contractors (NSW) P/L v Keating [2012] NTSC 04

No. LA 4 of 2011 (20910638)
BETWEEN:

GLOBAL INSULATION CONTRACTORS (NSW) P/L

Appellant

AND:

RONALD WILLIAM KEATING

Respondent

CORAM: BLOKLAND J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 13 January 2012)
Introduction

This is an appeal by the employer Global Insulation Contractors (NSW) P/L against certain findings and orders made by the Work Health Court on 20 June 2011.
The Work Health Court upheld the claim of the respondent/worker in the following terms; (the findings and orders effectively under challenge in this appeal appear in bold)
1. 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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Global Insulation Contractors (NSW) Pty Ltd v Keating 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: [2012] NTSC 4
Decision Date: 13/01/2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal by Global Insulation Contractors (NSW) Pty Ltd against a decision of the Work Health Court in which the latter found that the company was liable for workers' compensation payments to the appellant, Mr Keating. Mr Keating had brought the claim against his employer, alleging that he had sustained injuries in the course of his employment as a spray painter which resulted in silicosis. The employer had argued that the claim was time-barred and that it was not liable for the silicosis as it did not occur in the course of the employment. The Court of Appeal was required to determine the issues of whether the employer had been given proper notice of the claim, whether the silicosis could be considered an injury for the purposes of the relevant legislation, and whether the claim was time-barred.

The Court of Appeal found that the employer had been given proper notice of the claim, as the claim was lodged within the statutory period and the employer had been given an opportunity to respond. The Court held that the silicosis could be considered an injury for the purposes of the legislation, as it was a disease that resulted from the appellant's employment as a spray painter. The Court found that the silicosis was caused by the inhalation of silica dust, which was a risk inherent in the appellant's work. The Court held that the claim was not time-barred, as the appellant had not been aware of the injury until a later date, and the statutory period for lodging the claim did not begin until that later date. The Court found that the employer was liable for the workers' compensation claim.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and remitted the matter to the Work Health Court for determination of the quantum of damages. The Court held that the employer was liable for the workers' compensation claim and that the appellant was entitled to compensation for the silicosis. The Court held that the employer was not entitled to rely on the defence of most profitable employment, as the silicosis was a disease that resulted from the appellant's employment as a spray painter. The Court held that the employer was liable for the workers' compensation claim and that the appellant was entitled to compensation for the silicosis.

Orders