Statutes interpretation - Statement of Agreed Facts - Question for determination also applicability of s 93B of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act (1981), s 93B, s 175

Result:

In the factual circumstances Part IV, Division 2 of the Act applies

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff:     Mr M Seaman
Defendant:     Mr P V Lansell
Third Party                   :     Mr C P Crawford

Solicitors:

Plaintiff:     Michael Seaman
Defendant:     Jackson McDonald
Third Party                   :     Downings Legal

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

Bird v The Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 1
Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd (1987) 11 NSWLR 404
Koljibabic v WMC Resources Limited [2001] WADC 202
Koljibabic v WMC Resources Limited [2001] WADC 286

Case(s) also cited:

Employers' Mutual Indemnity Association Ltd v KB Hutcherson Pty Ltd (1976) 2 NSWLR 302
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Brewing Investments Ltd [2000] FCA 920
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Comber (1986) 10 FCR 88
Re Transport Industry (General Carriers) Contract Determination (1993) 46 IR 154
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 503

HAMMOND CJDC: This is the determination of a preliminary issue arising out of the interpretation of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 ("the Act").
There has been a Schedule of Agreed Facts settled for use in this trial of the stated preliminary issue and the plaintiff and the defendant agree to the following facts:
1. The defendant operates an abattoir.
2.The plaintiff was employed by the third party as a meat process worker.
3.The third party agreed to hire labour to the defendant to work at the defendant's abattoir.
4.Pursuant to the agreement the plaintiff's services were hired out to the defendant to work at the defendant's abattoir.
5.On 3 August 1998 and between 28 October 1998 and 18 October 1999 the plaintiff was performing work at the abattoir which was directly a part or process in the trade or business of the defendant.
6.For the purpose of s 175 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 the defendant is a deemed employer of the plaintiff.
The issue for determination before me is this question, "does Part IV, Division 2 of the Act apply to the plaintiff's claim?"
I turn firstly to this Part IV, Division 2 of the Act and s 93B relevantly reads as follows:
"93B. Application of this Division
(1)This Division applies to the awarding of damages against a worker's employer independently of this Act in respect of a disability suffered by a worker if –
(a)the disability was caused by the negligence or other tort of the worker's employer; and
(b)compensation has been paid or is payable in respect…

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 Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd [2002] WADC 22
Case: [2002] WADC 22
Decision Date: 13 FEBRUARY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Hewitt, and the defendant, Benale Pty Ltd. The plaintiff was seeking to have a statement of agreed facts admitted into evidence and also sought a determination on the applicability of section 93B of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant, had suffered a work-related injury and was seeking to have the injury recognised under the relevant workers' compensation legislation.

The court was required to determine two main legal issues. The first was whether the statement of agreed facts could be admitted into evidence as per the provisions of the relevant legislation. The second issue was whether section 93B of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 applied to the plaintiff's circumstances, given that the plaintiff had previously received a workers' compensation settlement. The court had to interpret the relevant sections of the Act to determine if the plaintiff's circumstances fell within the scope of section 93B, which deals with the circumstances under which a worker can claim compensation for a work-related injury.

The court, in its reasoning, found that the statement of agreed facts could be admitted into evidence, as it was consistent with the relevant provisions of the Act. The court further examined the provisions of section 93B and found that the plaintiff's circumstances did not fall within the scope of the section, given that the plaintiff had previously received a workers' compensation settlement. The court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to the benefits provided under section 93B and dismissed the plaintiff's claim in relation to this section.

The court ordered that the statement of agreed facts be admitted into evidence and that the plaintiff's claim in relation to section 93B of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 be dismissed. The court further ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings. The court's decision was based on a careful interpretation of the relevant legislation and the application of the facts as agreed by the parties.

Orders