KANOWNA BELLE GOLDMINES -v- FEIERABEND [2003] WASCA 246

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2003] WASCA 246
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:165/2001	Heard:	14 MAY 2003
Coram:	MURRAY J PARKER J WHEELER J	Delivered:	14/10/03
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	KANOWNA BELLE GOLDMINES RONALD WARREN FEIERABEND
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Appeal from Compensation Magistrate's Court Multiple contributing causes of worker's psychiatric condition Whether psychiatric condition 'results from' work-related injury Legal test of causation Disability , whether psychiatric condition which is a disease may be within par (a) of the definition of disability
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 5, definition of "disability", s 5(4)
Case References:	Cole v P & O Ports Ltd [2002] WASCA 157 Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626 Harwood v Wyken Colliery Co [1913] 2 KB 158 Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253 Rosmini v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1973) 6 SASR 212 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : KANOWNA BELLE GOLDMINES -v- FEIERABEND [2003] WASCA 246 CORAM : MURRAY J

PARKER J

WHEELER J

HEARD : 14 MAY 2003 DELIVERED : 14 OCTOBER 2003 FILE NO/S : FUL 165 of 2001 BETWEEN : KANOWNA BELLE GOLDMINES

Appellant (Respondent)

AND

RONALD WARREN FEIERABEND

Respondent (Appellant)

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Appeal from Compensation Magistrate's Court - Multiple contributing causes of worker's psychiatric condition - Whether psychiatric condition 'results from' work-related injury - Legal test of causation - Disability , whether psychiatric condition which is a disease may be within par (a) of the definition of disability

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 5, definition of "disability", s 5(4)

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Respondent) : Mr D R Clyne

Respondent (Appellant) : Mr B L Nugawela

Solicitors:

Appellant (Respondent) : McAuliffe Williams & Partners

Respondent (Appellant) : D'Angelo & Partners

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

Cole v P & O Ports Ltd [2002] WASCA 157
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Harwood v Wyken Colliery Co [1913] 2 KB 158
Re Monger; Ex parte United Construction Pty Ltd [2002] WASCA 253
Rosmini v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1973) 6 SASR 212

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 MURRAY J: I respectfully agree with Parker J that, for the reasons given by his Honour, this appeal should be dismissed. I have nothing to add.

2 PARKER J: This is an appeal from a decision of a Compensation Magistrate, Mr J R Packington SM which was given in the Compensation Magistrate's Court on 11 September 2001. By his decision the learned Magistrate allowed an appeal from a review officer and remitted the matter to the review officer for further consideration.

3 The decision of the review officer was in respect of an application of…

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 Kanowna Belle Goldmines v Feierabend 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: [2003] WASCA 246
Decision Date: 14 OCTOBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Kanowna Belle Goldmines v Feierabend, the dispute involved a claim for workers' compensation by a worker who alleged that a psychiatric condition resulted from a work-related injury. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The employer contested the claim, arguing that the psychiatric condition did not arise from the work-related injury and thus did not qualify for compensation under the applicable legislation.

The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of causation in cases where multiple contributing causes exist for a worker's psychiatric condition, and whether a psychiatric condition that is a disease falls within the definition of disability under the relevant workers' compensation statutes. The court had to interpret and apply the legal test of causation and the definition of disability to the specific facts of the case.

The court found that the worker's psychiatric condition was indeed a result of the work-related injury, despite other contributing factors. The court applied a comprehensive analysis of the evidence and relevant legal principles to conclude that the condition met the statutory criteria for compensation. The court also determined that a psychiatric condition, even if it is classified as a disease, could be considered within the definition of disability if it results from a work-related injury. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision awarding compensation to the worker was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.