HART -v- GRIFFIN COAL MINING CO PTY LTD [2005] WASCA 130

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2005] WASCA 130
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	FUL:54/2003	Heard:	12 MAY 2005
Coram:	WHEELER JA MCLURE JA PULLIN JA	Delivered:	14/07/05
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	BERNARD GERALD HART GRIFFIN COAL MINING CO PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Disability Degree of disability Aggravation of symptoms of preexisting degenerative disease Whether Review Officer must assess the extent to which degenerative disease caused the disability
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 93B, s 93D
Case References:	Girrawheen Tavern v Joseph [2003] WASCA 244 Anderson v Princess Margaret Hospital, unreported; CM132/00; 19 January 2001 Dzonlagic v The Mattress Renovators Perth Pty Ltd, unreported; CM129/00; 24 November 2000 Jacob v BHP Iron Ore, unreported; CM147/00; 9 February 2001 National Mine Management Pty Ltd v Bowden, unreported; CM105/00; 27 March 2001 Oceaneering Australia v Dyke, unreported; CM1/01; 26 June 2001 Tarr v BHP Iron Ore, unreported; CM182/00;28 May 2001

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HART -v- GRIFFIN COAL MINING CO PTY LTD [2005] WASCA 130 CORAM : WHEELER JA

MCLURE JA

PULLIN JA

HEARD : 12 MAY 2005 DELIVERED : 14 JULY 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 54 of 2003 BETWEEN : BERNARD GERALD HART

Appellant

AND

GRIFFIN COAL MINING CO PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COMPENSATION MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Coram : MR P G COCKRAM CM

File No : CM 145 of 2000

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Disability - Degree of disability - Aggravation of symptoms of preexisting degenerative disease - Whether Review Officer must assess the extent to which degenerative disease caused the disability

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 93B, s 93D

Result:

Appeal allowed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr S Melville

Respondent : Mr M W Schwikkard

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Jackson McDonald

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

Girrawheen Tavern v Joseph [2003] WASCA 244

Case(s) also cited:

Anderson v Princess Margaret Hospital, unreported; CM132/00; 19 January 2001
Dzonlagic v The Mattress Renovators Perth Pty Ltd, unreported; CM129/00; 24 November 2000
Jacob v BHP Iron Ore, unreported; CM147/00; 9 February 2001
National Mine Management Pty Ltd v Bowden, unreported; CM105/00; 27 March 2001
Oceaneering Australia v Dyke, unreported; CM1/01; 26 June 2001
Tarr v BHP Iron Ore, unreported; CM182/00;28 May 2001

(Page 3)

1 WHEELER JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for decision of Pullin JA. I agree with those reasons and have nothing to add.

2 MCLURE JA: I have had the advantage of reading in draft form the reasons to be published by Pullin JA. The reasoning of this Court in Girrawheen Tavern v Joseph [2003] WASCA 244 requires that this appeal be allowed. At the commencement…

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 Hart v Griffin Coal Mining Co 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: [2005] WASCA 130
Decision Date: 14 JULY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the court involved the claimant, Hart, who was seeking workers' compensation for a disability that he claimed was caused by his employment with Griffin Coal Mining Co Pty Ltd. Hart argued that his employment had aggravated symptoms of a pre-existing degenerative disease, leading to his disability. The Review Officer had assessed Hart's claim but did not consider the extent to which the degenerative disease contributed to his disability. The matter was brought before the court to determine whether the Review Officer was required to assess the extent of the degenerative disease's contribution to Hart's disability.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Review Officer was obligated to assess the extent to which the degenerative disease contributed to Hart's disability. The court had to consider whether the Review Officer's assessment was adequate under the relevant legislative provisions and whether the omission to assess the contribution of the degenerative disease to the disability was a material error. This required a careful examination of the statutory framework governing workers' compensation claims, particularly in relation to the assessment of disability caused by the aggravation of pre-existing conditions.

The court held that the Review Officer was indeed required to assess the extent to which the degenerative disease contributed to Hart's disability. The court found that the omission to make this assessment constituted a material error, as it was necessary to determine the precise nature and extent of the disability caused by the employment. The court emphasised that a comprehensive assessment of all contributing factors, including pre-existing conditions, was essential for a fair and accurate determination of the disability. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Review Officer for reassessment in accordance with the court's findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.