CITATION: LIGHTFOOT v RILEY [1999] NSWCA 155 revised - 02/06/99 FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40408/98 HEARING DATE(S): 20 May 1999 JUDGMENT DATE:
20 May 1999PARTIES :
LIGHTFOOT & CO PTY LTD
v
WILLIAM JAMES RILEYJUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Fitzgerald JA at 19
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 7280/96 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Balla ADCJ
COUNSEL: C R R Hoeben SC (Claimant)
K W Andrews (Opponent)SOLICITORS: Leigh Virtue & Associates (Claimant)
Shanahan Tudhope (Opponent)CATCHWORDS: ACTS CITED: Workers Compensation Act 1987 CASES CITED: Transfield Pty Limited v Mastroianni 24/6/98 unrep
Warr v Santos [1973] 1 NSWLR 432DECISION: Appeal allowed
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
40408/98
DC 7280/96
HANDLEY JA
FITZGERALD JA
Thursday 20 May 1999
LIGHTFOOT & CO PTY LTD v WILLIAM JAMES RILEY
DAMAGES - compensation rights not affected - to be deducted from damages
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION - compensation rights not affected by recovery of damages - to be deducted
A worker recovered damages for his deafness suffered from exposure to industrial noise prior to 4 pm on 20 June 1987. He had not crystallised his right to compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987. The trial Judge held that his damages should not be reduced to reflect the value of those rights, which would not be affected by the recovery of damages.
HELD: The worker’s damages must be reduced to reflect his rights under the Workers Compensation Act, although these had not been crystallised by award or settlement. Transfield Pty Ltd v Mastroianni (14/6/98 CA u/r) applied.
ORDERS(2) Appeal be allowed.
(1) Leave to appeal be granted.
(3) Judgment entered by the trial Judge, except as to costs, be set aside.
(4) There be substituted a judgment for a lesser amount to reflect the deductions of $39,869 and $11,488, the appropriate figure being $18,072.06.
(5) Claimant should have the costs of the appeal.
THE SUPREME COURT
(6) Opponent should have a certificate under the Suitors Fund Act.
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL
40408/98
DC 7280/96
HANDLEY JA
FITZGERALD JA
1 HANDLEY JA: This is a summons by an employer, Lightfoot and Co Pty Limited, for leave to appeal from a decision of Her Honour Balla ADCJ given on 20 May 1998. Her Honour had before her a claim by William James Riley for common law damages for industrial deafness arising from his work for the defendant as a stonemason and monumental mason from 1952 to 30 June 1987.
Thursday 20 May 1999
LIGHTFOOT & CO PTY LTD v WILLIAM JAMES RILEY
JUDGMENT
2 The plaintiff continued to work in the same business until May 1992, when he retired. Her Honour found that there had been a breach of the employer's common law duty of care which had caused the plaintiff to suffer massive industrial deafness. There was a dispute in the medical evidence as to the extent of the plaintiff's industrial deafness, but no dispute that he was profoundly deaf.
Continue reading Lightfoot v Riley
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Lightfoot v Riley [1999] NSWCA 155
- Case
- [1999] NSWCA 155
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Lightfoot (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute concerned the appellant's entitlement to a commission on the sale of a property. The respondent, Riley, had been engaged by the appellant to sell the property and claimed entitlement to a commission despite the sale being effected by another agent.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent had established a breach of contract by the appellant, specifically whether the appellant had wrongfully prevented the respondent from completing the sale and earning their commission. This involved an examination of the terms of the agency agreement and the conduct of the parties in relation to the sale process.
The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had not established that the appellant had wrongfully prevented the sale from being completed through the respondent's agency. The evidence did not support a finding that the appellant had acted in bad faith or had deliberately frustrated the respondent's efforts to sell the property. Consequently, the respondent had not demonstrated a breach of contract that would entitle them to a commission. The appeal was allowed.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the respondent had established a breach of contract by the appellant, specifically whether the appellant had wrongfully prevented the respondent from completing the sale and earning their commission. This involved an examination of the terms of the agency agreement and the conduct of the parties in relation to the sale process.
The Court of Appeal found that the respondent had not established that the appellant had wrongfully prevented the sale from being completed through the respondent's agency. The evidence did not support a finding that the appellant had acted in bad faith or had deliberately frustrated the respondent's efforts to sell the property. Consequently, the respondent had not demonstrated a breach of contract that would entitle them to a commission. The appeal was allowed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed
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.