Kelly v Roads & Traffic Authority

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION:         KELLY v ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY [2000]  NSWCA 292

FILE NUMBER(S):
40643/99

HEARING DATE(S):          5 October 2000

JUDGMENT DATE:           05/10/2000

PARTIES:
TERENCE JAMES KELLY v ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P Giles JA Davies AJA   

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:    Compensation Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):               CC 6368/96

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:          Maguire J

COUNSEL:
Appellant: M L Brabazon; J K Kinross
Respondent: P M Hall QC; L V Gyles;   J Connors

SOLICITORS:
Appellant: Emery Partners
Respondent: Hunt & Hunt

CATCHWORDS:
Workplace injury - appellant argues contraction of pneumonia in workplace - consideration of evidence from microbiologist - not proven that virus contracted in workplace sewerage water - microbiologists’s evidence only a possibility - ND.

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
Appeal dismissed with costs

JUDGMENT:

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40643/99

CC 6368/96

MASON P
GILES JA
DAVIES AJA

Thursday 5 October 2000

Terrence James KELLY v ROADS & TRAFFIC AUTHORITY

JUDGMENT

  1. MASON P:  The appellant failed in his application for worker’s compensation for incapacity stemming from contracting an unusual strain of pneumonia called Chlamydia Pneumoniae.  There was an award for the respondent employer which is now challenged “in point of law” (Compensation Court Act 1984 s32).

  2. The debilitating illness was diagnosed in September 1995.

  3. The issue fought and lost at trial was whether that injury arose out of or in the course of the appellant’s employment with the respondent.

  4. In his Application for Determination, the appellant pleaded that the injury happened through exposure to infection-inducing agents while working as a driver for the Roads & Traffic Authority at the F3 extension Minmi Swamp Stockrington.  The date of injury was pleaded as July to September 1995.

  5. In fact the appellant worked at the site between 17 and 21 July 1995.  He used a tip truck to haul crushed slag and sand.  He said that he was splashed with grey water which smelled strongly of sewage and at times he drove through a mist containing traces of such water.

  6. It was found by the primary judge, Judge Maguire, that a week or so after starting at the Minmi job the appellant became ill with symptoms of fever, chills and a lung infection: but this was not pneumonia.

  7. The hearing took place on 30 March 1998, 23 June 1998 and 4 February 1999.

  8. The case initially advanced by the appellant and maintained during the first two hearing days was that the grey water at Minmi was the source of the Chlamydia bacteria which led to the pneumonia detected in September 1995.  This case failed when it became apparent that the incubation period for Chlamydia infection detected in September was too long to be consistent with the onset of the symptoms revealed back in July.  The appellant accepts this. Indeed the appellant appears to have accepted the inevitability of such a conclusion during the hearing because the case left to the court at the conclusion of the hearing on 4 February…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kelly v Roads & Traffic Authority 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
[2000] NSWCA 292
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Kelly v Roads & Traffic Authority*, the appellant brought a claim against the respondent alleging contraction of pneumonia in the workplace. The matter came before the court for consideration of the evidence presented.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the appellant had proven, on the balance of probabilities, that the pneumonia contracted was a result of exposure to sewerage water in the workplace. This required the court to assess the scientific evidence presented, particularly that of a microbiologist.

The court found that the evidence from the microbiologist, while suggesting a possibility of the virus being contracted in the workplace sewerage water, did not establish this as a certainty or even a probability. The evidence was considered insufficient to discharge the onus of proof resting on the appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with 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.