Legal Research
Cases
Leggett v Argyle Diamond Mines Pty Ltd

Leggett v Argyle Diamond Mines Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 18 July 2000 11 min read

Contents

On this page

LEGGETT -v- ARGYLE DIAMOND MINES PTY LTD [2000] WASCA 182

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2000] WASCA 182
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:134/1998	Heard:	16 MARCH 2000
Coram:	PIDGEON J WALLWORK J MILLER J	Delivered:	18/07/00
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed - the question was whether the further incapacity had resulted from the earlier disability
PDF Version

Parties:	DEAN PETER LEGGETT ARGYLE DIAMOND MINES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Workers compensation Whether injury had resulted from earlier disability Review officer found it had not been established that the further incapacity was simply a continuation of an earlier disability On appeal
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), Schedule 1, cl 7
Case References:	Canale v Commissioner of Main Roads (1982) 1 WCR (WA) Vol 1 Pt 1 163 Rosmini v Chrysler (1973) 6 SASR 212 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139 Danagher v Racing Penalties Appeals Tribunal (1995) 13 WAR 531 Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 153 ALR 276 Koorangang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452 Lloyd v Faraone [1989] WAR 154 March v E & M H Stramare Pty Limited (1990-1991) 171 CLR 506 Migge v Wormald Brothers Industries Ltd (1972) 2 NSWLR 29 Re Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 26 ALR 247 Summit Homes v Lucev (1996) 16 WAR 566 Waterford v Commonwealth (1989) 163 CLR 54 Western Australian Planning Commission v Lillyville Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 990174; 9 April 1999 Wright v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1977) 1 NSWLR 697

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : LEGGETT -v- ARGYLE DIAMOND MINES PTY LTD [2000] WASCA 182 CORAM : PIDGEON J

WALLWORK J

MILLER J

HEARD : 16 MARCH 2000 DELIVERED : 18 JULY 2000 FILE NO/S : FUL 134 of 1998 BETWEEN : DEAN PETER LEGGETT

Appellant

AND

ARGYLE DIAMOND MINES PTY LTD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Workers compensation - Whether injury had resulted from earlier disability - Review officer found it had not been established that the further incapacity was simply a continuation of an earlier disability - On appeal

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), Schedule 1, cl 7

Result:

Appeal allowed - the question was whether the further incapacity had resulted from the earlier disability

(Page 2)

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr M T Ritter

Respondent : Mr R J L McCormack

Solicitors:

Appellant : Chapmans

Respondent : Srdarov Richards Burton

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

Canale v Commissioner of Main Roads (1982) 1 WCR (WA) Vol 1 Pt 1 163
Rosmini v Chrysler (1973) 6 SASR 212

Case(s) also cited:

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Danagher v Racing Penalties Appeals Tribunal (1995) 13 WAR 531
Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 153 ALR 276
Koorangang Cement…

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 Leggett v Argyle Diamond Mines 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: [2000] WASCA 182
Decision Date: 18 JULY 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Leggett, appealed a decision of the respondent, Argyle Diamond Mines Pty Ltd, which rejected his claim for workers' compensation. Leggett suffered a previous injury which resulted in disability. He claimed that his subsequent inability to work was a result of the earlier injury. The review officer found that it had not been established that Leggett's further incapacity was simply a continuation of the earlier disability. The appeal was heard by the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issue the court had to decide was whether Leggett's further incapacity had resulted from the earlier disability. The court had to consider the evidence and determine if the connection between the earlier injury and the subsequent incapacity was established. The court also had to assess the review officer's findings and determine if there was any error in the decision-making process.

The court found that the review officer had erred in his assessment of the evidence. The court held that the question to be determined was whether the further incapacity had resulted from the earlier disability. The court found that the evidence showed that the further incapacity was a result of the earlier injury, and therefore, the review officer's decision was incorrect. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the respondent to reconsider Leggett's claim for workers' compensation.

No final orders were made in the judgment, as the matter was remitted to the respondent for reconsideration. The court held that the question to be determined was whether the further incapacity had resulted from the earlier disability, and that the review officer's decision was incorrect. The court found that the evidence showed that the further incapacity was a result of the earlier injury, and therefore, the review officer's decision was incorrect.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed - the question was whether the further incapacity had resulted from the earlier disability

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.