Legal Research
Cases
Ilsley v Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd

Ilsley v Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 14 May 1997 14 min read

Contents

On this page

WORKERS COMPENSATION - Statutory Construction - appellant suffered compensable back injury while working for first employer - appellant later suffered injury while working for subsequent employer - total incapacity for work - causation - incapacity resulting from injuries sustained in each employment - whether first employer continues to be liable under ACT legislation.

Workers’ Compensation Act 1951 (ACT); s7(1); Schedule 1 - clause 1(a), 1(b)

Accident Compensation Commission v CE Health Underwriting & Insurance (Aust) Pty Ltd (1994) 68 ALJR 525
Australian Eagle Insurance Co Ltd v Federation Insurance Ltd (1976) 15 SASR 282
Bushby v Morris [1980] 1 NSWLR 81
Koorang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452
March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Morris v George [1977] 2 NSWLR 552
Switzerland Insurance Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd v Burley, New South Wales Court of Appeal, 5 December 1996, unreported

GRAEME PETER ILSLEY v WATTYL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
ACTG 69 of 1996

Higgins, Cooper, Finn JJ
Canberra
14 May 1997

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY     )
  )    No. ACTG 69 of 1996
DISTRICT REGISTRY                )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN: GRAEME PETER ILSLEY
Appellant
AND:WATTYL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
Respondent

COURT:HIGGINS, COOPER & FINN JJ
PLACE:CANBERRA

DATE: 14 MAY 1997

MINUTES OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal from the judgment and orders of the Supreme Court made and entered on 7 November 1996 be allowed.

The orders of the Supreme Court made on 7 November 1996 be set aside and in lieu thereof it is ordered: -

(a)the award and orders of Magistrate Ward made on 24 April 1996 be varied to delete from para 3(ii) the words “partial incapacity between 26 April 1995 and 30 June 1995”.

(b)Wattyl Australia Pty Limited pay the costs of Graeme Peter Ilsley of the proceedings in the Supreme Court.

The respondent on the appeal pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
  )
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY     )
  )    No. ACTG 69 of 1996
DISTRICT REGISTRY                )
  )
GENERAL DIVISION                 )

BETWEEN: GRAEME PETER ILSLEY
Appellant
AND:WATTYL AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
Respondent

COURT:HIGGINS, COOPER & FINN JJ
PLACE:CANBERRA

DATE: 14 MAY 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The issues in this appeal involve the construction and application to somewhat distinctive facts, of cl 1(b) of Schedule I of the Workers’ Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) (“the Act”). It is appropriate at the outset to refer to the relevant statutory provisions that bear on the matter.

The Statutory Setting

The Act, s7(1) provides that:

“Where a worker suffers personal injury arising out of or in the course of the worker’s employment, the employer is liable to pay compensation in accordance with Schedule 1.”

The Schedule in turn provides how the amount of compensation is to be computed in prescribed…

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 Ilsley v Wattyl Australia 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: [1997] FCA 427
Decision Date: 14 MAY 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the Federal Court in Ilsley v Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd involved the interpretation and application of the Workers' Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) concerning the liability of employers for injuries sustained by an employee during separate employments. Graeme Peter Ilsley, the appellant, had suffered compensable back injuries while working for the respondent, Wattyl Australia Pty Ltd, and later sustained another injury while employed by BBC. The central issue was whether Wattyl remained liable for Ilsley's total incapacity under the Act, given the subsequent injury.

The court had to determine the legal framework governing the liability of employers in cases where an employee suffers multiple injuries during different employments. The key statutory provisions were s7(1) and Schedule 1, clause 1(b) of the Act, which outlined the employer's liability for injuries arising out of employment that result in total incapacity for work. The court examined the legislative history and the use of different formulas in the Act to understand the intended scope and causation requirements of the statutory provisions.

The court reasoned that the Act's clause 1(b) required a common-sense evaluation of causation, similar to the principles of causation in negligence. It concluded that while the injury sustained by Ilsley on 30 June 1995 was the immediate proximate cause of his total incapacity, the injuries from his previous employment with Wattyl were also operative and effective causes of that incapacity. The court held that Wattyl remained liable for the total incapacity despite the subsequent injury because the prior injuries materially contributed to the condition which was aggravated by the later incident.

The Federal Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Supreme Court's decision and reinstating the magistrate's finding of total incapacity from 30 June 1995. The court ordered that Wattyl pay Ilsley's costs of the Supreme Court proceedings and that the costs of the appeal be paid by Wattyl. The court highlighted the need for apportionment of liability between employers in such cases, a matter left to separate proceedings under the general law.

Orders