Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Karanfilov v Inghams Enterprises P/L [2003] QCA 242

PARTIES:

ZAKLINA KARANFILOV
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
ACN 008 447 345
(defendant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5365 of 2002
SC No 9969 of 2000

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Personal Injury - Quantum

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

6 June 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2003

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and White J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Appeal dismissed with costs

CATCHWORDS:

STATUTES – ACTS OF PARLIAMENT – INTERPRETATION – CONSIDERATION OF EXTRINSIC MATTERS – OTHER MATTERS – whether claim under s 315 WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld) could be entertained where respondent’s husband had provided gratuitous services from time of respondent’s injury until trial

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE AND ONUS OF PROOF – PARTICULAR ACCIDENTS AND DISEASES – ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATISM AND OTHER BONE AND JOINT DISEASES – whether the respondent relied exclusively on a failure by the appellant to provide a “safe system of work” – whether, if so, the appellant had made no “reasonable attempt” to put in place an appropriate system of work

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – ASSESSMENT OF DAMAGES – whether trial judge acted on a wrong principle of law or misapprehended facts or made a wholly erroneous estimate of damage suffered

WorkCover Queensland Act 1996 (Qld), s 312, s 315

Elford v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd [1994] 1 Qd R 258, considered
Mansini v Martin [1998] QCA 222, considered
Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190, considered
Plumb v State of Queensland [2000] QCA 258, considered

COUNSEL:

G C Martin, with R M Treston, for the appellant
W D P Campbell, with F H Dawson, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

B Thomas Lawyers for the appellant
Sciaccas Lawyers for the respondent

1. McPHERSON JA: I agree with the reasons of White J which I have had the advantage of reading, for dismissing this appeal. I also agree with what is said by Jerrard JA about the interpretation of s 315 of the WorkCover Queensland Act 1996.

1. The appeal should be dismissed with costs.

1. JERRARD JA:  I have read the reasons for judgment and orders proposed by White J and respectfully agree with those.  I note that the critical finding of fact regarding the medical evidence, not challenged on the appeal, was:

“What is known in this case is that Mrs Karanfilov developed painful supraspinatus tendinitis with calcification as a result of her work at Inghams.  Appropriate medical treatment was undertaken to relieve her pain but unfortunately to do so left her with a frozen shoulder which has left her disabled, in pain, and unable to use her left arm, and so unable to work, and unable to perform many household tasks that she was previously able to perform.”