Mallah v Lube Mobile

[2002] NSWCA 209

CITATION:	MALLAH v LUBE MOBILE [2002] NSWCA 209
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40825/01
HEARING DATE(S):	25 June 2002
JUDGMENT DATE:	3 July 2002
PARTIES :	Mohamad Mallah v Lube Mobile Pty Limited
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Handley JA at 2; Hodgson JA at 15

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	Compensation Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	CC 55956/99
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Burke CCJ

COUNSEL:	Appellant - John Wynyard Respondent - J D Hislop QC/C J Callaway
SOLICITORS:	Appellant - Michael E Bradstreet Respondent - PricewaterhouseCoopers Legal
CATCHWORDS:	WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT 1987 (NSW) s 4(a) AND s 9A(1) - IN THE COURSE OF EMPLOYMENT - SUBSTANTIAL CONTRIBUTING FACTOR
LEGISLATION CITED:	Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
CASES CITED:	Tubemakers of Australia Ltd v Fernandez (1976) 50 ALJR 720 Australian Gas Light Co v The Valuer-General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126 Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs

40825/01
CC55956/99
MEAGHER JA
HANDLEY JA
HODGSON JA


Wednesday 3 July 2002

MOHAMAD MALLAH v LUBE MOBILE PTY LIMITED

WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT 1987 (NSW) s 4(a) and s 9A(1) – in the course of employment – substantial contributing factor

The appellant was involved in an accident on 7 December 1998 whilst driving a motor vehicle in the course of his employment. He had felt dizzy and had pulled over to recover but after a short while continued to drive but then blacked out. He hit a telegraph pole and suffered soft tissue injuries. The appellant had blacked out and collapsed at a nightclub two days earlier.

Compensation payments were made for a time but then ceased and the appellant commenced proceedings in the Compensation Court. By this time all physical consequences of the accident had ceased. The appellant’s only continuing medical condition was a paralysis of his leg which was either due to malingering or to a conversion disorder. On the assumption that the paralysis was due to a conversion disorder, the trial Judge found no nexus between the conversion disorder and any element of his employment.

The issues on appeal were whether the appellant, under s 4(a) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), had shown that his paralysis was an injury which arose out of or in the course of his employment or was the result of such an injury, and if so whether the employment “was a substantial contributing factor to the injury” within s 9A(1).
HELD: The trial Judge’s refusal to draw an inference of causation between the accident and the conversion disorder from the sequence of events was not affected by misdirection or other legal error.
ORDER
Appeal dismissed with costs.

40825/01
CC55956/99
MEAGHER JA
HANDLEY JA
HODGSON JA


Wednesday 3 July 2002

MOHAMAD MALLAH v LUBE MOBILE PTY LIMITED

Judgment

1 Meagher JA: I agree with Handley JA.

2 Handley JA: The appellant has appealed from an award for the respondent made by Burke ACCJ on 15 August 2001. The appeal is limited to questions of law.

3 The…