KENWARD and JOHN HOLLAND PTY LTD

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2011] AATA 701

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No 2010/2240

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re WILLIAM KENWARD

Applicant

And

JOHN  HOLLAND PTY LTD

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal Mr R G Kenny, Senior Member and
Dr G Maynard, RFD, Member  

Date11 October 2011

PlaceBrisbane

Decision

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes its decision that:

(a) under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), the respondent is liable to provide rehabilitation and to pay compensation to the applicant for incapacity for work or impairment from the aggravation, as set out in paragraph 52 of these reasons, of his right supraspinatous tendonitis/subacromial bursitis and mild right acromioclavicular joint synovitis; and
(b)     costs are payable to the applicant in accordance with the Tribunal’s general practice direction.

................[Sgd]........................

Senior Member

5A      Definition of injury

(1)       In this Act:

injury means:

(a)       a disease suffered by an employee; or

(b)an injury (other than a disease) suffered by an employee, that is a physical or mental injury arising out of, or in the course of, the employee’s employment; or

(c)       ...

but does not include a disease, injury or aggravation suffered as a result of reasonable administrative action taken in a reasonable manner in respect of the employee’s employment.

(2)...

5B      Definition of disease

(1)       In this Act:

disease means:

(a)       an ailment suffered by an employee; or

(b)       an aggravation of such an ailment;

that was contributed to, to a significant degree, by the employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee.

(2)In determining whether an ailment or aggravation was contributed to, to a significant degree, by an employee’s employment by the Commonwealth or a licensee, the following matters may be taken into account:

(a)       the duration of the employment;

(b)       the nature of, and particular tasks involved in, the employment;

(c)any predisposition of the employee to the ailment or aggravation;

(d)       any activities of the employee not related to the employment;

(e)       any other matters affecting the employee’s health.

This subsection does not limit the matters that may be taken into account.

(3)       In this Act:

significant degree means a degree that is substantially more than material.

4. An issue for the Tribunal is the timing of the onset of Mr Kenward’s shoulder condition. To that end, s 7(4) of the Act reads:

(4)For the purposes of this Act, an employee shall be taken to have sustained an injury, being a disease, or an aggravation of a disease, on the day when:

(a)the employee first sought medical treatment for the disease, or aggravation; or

(b)the disease or aggravation resulted in the death of the employee or first resulted in the incapacity for work, or impairment of the employee;

whichever happens first.

5.      For the purposes of that provision, Mr Wiltshire submitted that the date of onset was 2 February 2009, when Mr Kenward made a complaint to the respondent’s safety officer; or, alternatively, on 8 September 2009, when…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read KENWARD and JOHN HOLLAND 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
[2011] AATA 701
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kenward brought a claim against John Holland Pty Ltd for workers’ compensation, alleging an injury to his right shoulder. The respondent had denied the claim, stating that the condition was a disease rather than an injury. The case was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), which had previously dismissed the claim. Kenward sought review of that decision by the Federal Court. The primary issue before the court was whether the condition for which Kenward sought compensation was an injury or a disease under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth). If it was a disease, the court also had to consider whether it was significantly contributed to by employment. The court found that the condition was a disease, but it was significantly contributed to by Kenward’s employment. The court held that the aggravation of the disease was an injury. Accordingly, the respondent was liable to pay compensation or provide treatment for incapacity or impairment from the aggravation. The court set aside the AAT’s decision and substituted its own, finding that the respondent was liable to pay compensation or provide treatment for the aggravation of Kenward’s condition. The court also ordered that costs be paid to Kenward in accordance with the Tribunal’s general practice direction.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes its decision that:

(a) under s 14 of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Cth), the respondent is liable to provide rehabilitation and to pay compensation to the applicant for incapacity for work or impairment from the aggravation, as set out in paragraph 52 of these reasons, of his right supraspinatous tendonitis/subacromial bursitis and mild right acromioclavicular joint synovitis; and

(b) costs are payable to the applicant in accordance with the Tribunal’s general practice direction.

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.