Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Thomas [2022] NSWCA 183 Hearing dates: 24 August 2022 Decision date: 20 September 2022 Before: Ward P at [1];
Macfarlan JA at [2];
White JA at [3]Decision: Summons filed 11 March 2022 seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION – Boilermaker’s deafness – Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) ss 60 and 17 – claim for provision of new hearing aids – where notice of injury of loss of hearing given to worker’s then employer in 1999 – where worker changed employment in 2009 – where worker suffered further hearing loss due to nature of employment after 1999 but did not give notice of further injury to later employer – where finding made that hearing aids were reasonably necessary as a consequence of worker’s hearing loss notified in 1999 – held worker not obliged to give notice of further injury to second employer – first employer liable for consequences of 1999 injury – no question of law
Legislation Cited: Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2000 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Commissioner for Railways v Bain (1965) 112 CLR 246; [1965] HCA 5
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd (Appellant/Applicant)
Stephen Thomas (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
L King SC with S Grant (Appellant/Applicant)
C T Barry QC with J Hallion (Respondent)
Hall and Wilcox (Appellant/Applicant)
Whitelaw McDonald (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/5327 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Personal Injury Commission
- Citation:
Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Thomas [2021] NSWPICPD 46
- Date of Decision:
- 13 December 2021
- Before:
- Deputy President Elizabeth Wood
- File Number(s):
- A1-W428/21
JUDGMENT
-
WARD P: I agree with the reasons of White JA and the making of an order that the application for leave to appeal be dismissed.
-
MACFARLAN JA: I agree with White JA.
-
WHITE JA: This is an application for leave to appeal from a decision of Deputy President Wood of the Personal Injury Commission confirming a certificate of determination made by Senior Member Capel dated 18 May 2021.
-
The application before the Personal Injury Commission concerned a claim by the present respondent, Mr Thomas, that a former employer, the appellant, Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd (formerly CSR Ltd) (“Holcim”), pay for the cost of new hearing aids. He had been employed by Holcim for many years until he ceased work with it in 2009. He thereafter obtained employment with ACI Operations as a factory worker and was working with ACI Operations at the time of the hearing before the Commission.
-
On 28 June 1999 Mr Thomas’s former solicitor served a notice of claim on Holcim for lump sum compensation for 16.8% binaural hearing loss. Senior Member Capel recorded that the parties negotiated a compromise settlement…
Continue reading Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Thomas
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd v Thomas [2022] NSWCA 183
- Case
- [2022] NSWCA 183
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr Thomas was obliged to give notice of his further hearing loss to his second employer, Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd, given that the hearing aids were found to be reasonably necessary as a consequence of the hearing loss notified in 1999. The court was required to determine the extent of the second employer's liability, if any, for the provision of hearing aids necessitated by the cumulative effect of hearing loss, where only the initial loss had been notified to a previous employer.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that Mr Thomas was not obliged to give notice of further injury to his second employer. The court found that the hearing aids were reasonably necessary as a consequence of the hearing loss that had been notified in 1999. Therefore, the first employer, not Holcim (Australia) Pty Ltd, was liable for the consequences of the 1999 injury. The court concluded that there was no question of law to be determined on appeal. The summons seeking leave to appeal was dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Summons filed 11 March 2022 seeking leave to appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.