CITATION:Karen Alison Power v HSE Mining Pty Ltd [2004] NTMC 5
PARTIES:KAREN ALISON POWER
v
HSE MINING PTY LTD
TITLE OF COURT: Work Health Court
JURISDICTION: Work Health
FILE NO(s):20205642
DELIVERED ON: 30 January 2004
DELIVERED AT: Darwin
HEARING DATE(s): 9 – 12 September 2003
JUDGMENT OF: Mr J Lowndes
CATCHWORDS:
FAILURE TO GIVE NOTICE -- WHETHER WORKER’S CLAIM BARRED BY
TIME -- NOTION OF MUTUALITY -- FAILURE TO MITIGATE -- WHETHER SUPERANNUATION PART OF NORMAL WEEKLY EARNINGS
Work Health Act, 55, 80, 104, 182
Tracey Village Sports and Social Club v Walker (1992) 111 FLR 32, applied;
Foresight v Maddich (1991) 79 NTR 17, applied;
Roh Industries v Trepic (1989) 52 SASR 158, considered;
Cleveland v Paspaley Pearling Pty Ltd [1999] NTSC 65, considered;
Lindner v Normandy Gold Pty Ltd (2000) NTMC 028, considered;
Tanner v Anthappi Pty Ltd (2000) NTMC 004, considered;
Ansett Australian v Van Nieuwmans (1999) 9 NTLR 125, considered
Smith v Hastings Deering (Australia) Ltd [2003] NTMC 029, followed.REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Worker:Mr Grant
Employer:Mr Bryant
Solicitors:
Worker:Ward Keller
Employer:Cridlands
Judgment category classification: A
Judgment ID number: [2004] NTMC 5
Number of paragraphs: 234
IN THE WORK HEALTH COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIANo. 20205642
BETWEEN:
KAREN ALISON POWER
Worker
AND:
HSE MINING PTY LTD
Employer
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Delivered 30 January 2004)
Mr J Lowndes SM:
The nature of the proceedings
This is an application made by the worker pursuant to the provisions of the Work Health Act (NT) whereby the worker seeks the following orders:
1.1That the employer pay weekly benefits to the worker in accordance with the Act over the period from the date of termination of the worker’s employment to date of order.
1.2That the employer pay to the worker interest pursuant to s 189 and/or 109 of the Act in respect of arrears over the period from and including 14 February 1998 to and including 24 March 1998.
1.3That the employer pay the worker weekly benefits pursuant to the Act from the date of order and continuing in accordance with the Act.
1.4That the employer pay the worker’s entitlement to medical, surgical and like expenses pursuant to s 73 of the Act, and travel expenses relevant to such medical expenses, at all times from 9 October 1996 to date of order.
1.5That the employer pay the worker’s medical and like expenses, including relevant travel expenses, from the date of order in accordance with the Act.
1.6That the employer pay the worker’s costs of and incidental to the proceedings at 100% of the Supreme Court Scale, to be taxed in default of agreement.
The issues
The following matters are admitted:
2.1The worker was a “worker” within the meaning of the Work Health Act, that the worker’s normal weekly earnings in terms of wages were $1,122.00, that the worker was involved in an accident on 9 October 1996[1], that the worker sustained an injury as a result of that accident and…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Karen Alison Power v HSE Mining 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2004] NTMC 5
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court examined the evidence and determined that Power's claim was not time-barred, as she had brought the claim within the six-month period from the date of the accident. Regarding incapacity, the court found that Power did indeed suffer from some incapacity following the accident, despite the employer's assertions to the contrary. The court also concluded that Power had not failed to mitigate her loss, as she took reasonable steps to return to work and had justifiable reasons for any absences following the accident. The court's reasoning was based on the balance of probabilities and the credibility of the evidence presented by both parties.
In light of the findings, the court ruled in favour of Power, dismissing the employer's counterclaims. The final orders were not explicitly stated in the text, but typically, such a ruling would result in the employer being liable for compensation for the injuries sustained by Power in the accident.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
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.