LIU -v- INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2007] WASCA 134

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2007] WASCA 134
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	26/06/2007
Case No:	CACV:23/2006	Heard:	8 MARCH 2007
Coram:	STEYTLER P WHEELER JA PULLIN JA	Delivered:	8/03/07
No of pages:	7	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ZHEN LIU INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Workers compensation Alternative rights against employer for damages at common law and statutory compensation Appeal from Compensation Magistrate Error of law Alleged denial of natural justice by Review Officer
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 Twist v Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : LIU -v- INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD [2007] WASCA 134 CORAM : STEYTLER P

WHEELER JA

PULLIN JA

HEARD : 8 MARCH 2007 DELIVERED : 8 MARCH 2007 PUBLISHED : 26 JUNE 2007 FILE NO/S : CACV 23 of 2006 BETWEEN : ZHEN LIU

Appellant

AND

INGHAMS ENTERPRISES PTY LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COMPENSATION MAGISTRATES COURT

Coram : MS P M HOGAN CM

File No : CM 121 of 2005

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Workers compensation - Alternative rights against employer for damages at common law and statutory compensation - Appeal from Compensation Magistrate - Error of law - Alleged denial of natural justice by Review Officer

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr K S Pratt

Respondent : Mr J R Ludlow

Solicitors:

Appellant : Hoffmans

Respondent : Dibbs Abbott Stillman

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

Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
Twist v Randwick Municipal Council (1976) 136 CLR 106

(Page 3)

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The appellant was employed by the respondent in 1990. She worked primarily as a chicken boner. Around Christmas 2001 she began to experience pain and swelling in her hands while working. This continued even when she was given alternative duties. After taking several periods of leave in an attempt to recover, she was placed on a graduated work programme. However, a few months after that programme began, her employment was terminated by the respondent.

2 The appellant continued to experience symptoms after her dismissal. She consulted a number of doctors. Some of these believed that the problems with her hands were work-related and caused by overuse. Others believed that she suffered from inflammatory polyarthritis, a condition which was exacerbated by, but not caused by, her work for the respondent.

3 The appellant claimed workers compensation payments from the respondent. The respondent arranged for clandestine video surveillance of the appellant while she undertook a range of everyday tasks. It provided an edited copy of the videotape to various doctors who had previously assessed the appellant. Several of them, on seeing the footage, expressed the opinion that the appellant had been exaggerating her injuries and that she was fit to…

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 Liu v Inghams Enterprises 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: [2007] WASCA 134
Decision Date: 8 MARCH 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Liu brought proceedings against Inghams Enterprises seeking damages for injuries sustained at work, having already received statutory compensation. Inghams applied to have the claim dismissed, arguing that Liu had not complied with the requirements of section 48 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). The Compensation Magistrate dismissed Liu's claim on this basis, and Liu appealed to the District Court, contending that the Magistrate erred in law and that the Review Officer had denied him natural justice. Inghams cross-appealed, arguing that Liu's claim was statute-barred.

The District Court considered whether the appeal was correctly dismissed and whether the claim was statute-barred. The court examined the Magistrate's reasons, including whether they were flawed in law, and whether the Review Officer's decision was unfair. The court held that the Magistrate's reasons were sound, and that Liu had not identified any error of law in the decision. The court also found that Liu's claim was statute-barred, as he had not commenced proceedings within the relevant time period. Liu's appeal was dismissed, and Inghams' cross-appeal was allowed.

The court held that the Compensation Magistrate's decision was not flawed in law, and that the Review Officer's decision was fair. The court found that Liu had not identified any error of law in the Magistrate's reasons, and that the Review Officer had not denied natural justice. The court also held that Liu's claim was statute-barred, as he had not commenced proceedings within the relevant time period. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Inghams' cross-appeal was allowed. The District Court's decision was that Liu's claim for damages was statute-barred and that the Compensation Magistrate's decision was not flawed in law.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.