COUNSEL: Appellant - S G Campbell Respondent - W P Kearns SC/R Hanlon
SOLICITORS: Appellant - Thomas Laycock Respondent - Smythe & Mallam
CATCHWORDS: MOTOR ACCIDENTS - Late claim - application for dismissal of proceedings - Motor Accidents Act 1988 s 43A(7) - whether claimant had a "full" explanation for delay - prejudice not a relevant matter to consider in determining application for dismissal WORKERS COMPENSATION - alternative rights and election between different remedies - Workers Compensation Act 1987 s151Z(1) - rule against double compensation - worker injured at work as a result of outsider's negligence - worker later aggravates injury at work - worker sues outsider for damages, including damages resulting from aggravation - whether workers' compensation entitlements should have been deducted from damages DAMAGES - personal injuries - avoiding double compensation - offsetting of workers' compensation payments - Workers Compensation Act 1987 s151Z(1) - worker injured at work as a result of outsider's negligence - worker later aggravates injury at work - worker sues outsider for damages, including damages resulting from aggravation - whether workers' compensation entitlements should have been deducted from damages
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40978/00 DC 125/99 DC 3807/99
BEAZLEY JA STEIN JA ROLFE AJA
Thursday, 2 May 2002
PETER MANCINI v ERIC THOMPSON
FACTS
In 1996 the respondent was involved in two incidents at work. In May, as a result of the appellant’s negligence, he was struck by an object being lowered by a crane. His neck and shoulders were injured, but he continued to work. This was a “motor accident” for the purposes of the Motor Accidents Act 1988 (NSW). In December, he jumped from the tray of a lorry and experienced neck pain. He then stopped working. After returning to work for a brief period, he stopped working altogether. He was diagnosed as having a posterior bulge of the C5/6 disc and had surgery. The accepted medical evidence was that his disabilities resulted from a disc prolapse, which occurred in the May accident and that the December incident was but a continuation of the same injury.
In 1997 the respondent lodged a late claim against the appellant under the Motor Accidents Act, and in 1999 he commenced proceedings in the District Court against the appellant, alleging negligence in respect of the May incident, and claiming damages, including damages flowing from the exacerbation of his injury sustained in the December incident. The appellant applied 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.
Continue reading Mancini v Thompson
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Mancini v Thompson [2002] NSWCA 38
Case
[2002] NSWCA 38
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of *Mancini v Thompson* concerned appeals arising from decisions made by Judge Sorby. The primary dispute involved a claimant's late claim under the *Motor Accidents Act 1988* and the issue of whether workers' compensation entitlements should be deducted from damages awarded in a personal injury claim.
The court was required to determine two key legal issues. Firstly, whether the claimant had a "full" explanation for the delay in lodging their motor accident claim, as contemplated by section 43A(7) of the *Motor Accidents Act 1988*. Secondly, the court had to consider the application of section 151Z(1) of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*, specifically whether workers' compensation entitlements should be deducted from damages awarded to a worker who suffered an initial injury at work due to an outsider's negligence and subsequently aggravated that injury at work, before suing the outsider for damages.
Regarding the *Motor Accidents Act 1988*, the court reiterated that when determining applications for dismissal of proceedings due to late claims, judges are not required to consider matters of prejudice. The focus is solely on whether the claimant has provided a "full" explanation for the delay. In relation to the *Workers Compensation Act 1987*, the court's reasoning, as indicated by the agreement with Beazley JA, suggests that the rule against double compensation and the deduction of workers' compensation entitlements from damages were applied in accordance with the statutory provisions.
Both appeals were dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Both appeals dismissed with costs
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
Accordingly, the appeal from his Honour’s decision should be dismissed with costs. However, for emphasis, I would repeat that Judges, called upon to determine questions under these sections of the Act, are not required to consider matters of prejudice.The Decision of Judge Sorby I agree with Beazley JA.