Matthew Hall Pty Ltd - Appellant Cameron Smart - Respondent
JUDGMENT OF:
Mason P at 1; Powell JA at 2; Giles JA at 3
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :
Compensation Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :
CC 17968/97
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :
Hughes CCJ
COUNSEL:
H N Kelly - Appellant R I Goodridge - Respondent
SOLICITORS:
A O Ellison & Co - Appellant Firths - Respondent
CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS COMPENSATION - eye injury - whether condition at trial caused by injury - whether due in part to condition existing before injury - if so what deduction from s 66 compensation pursuant to s 68A Workers Compensation Act - held no pre-existing condition - no deduction - assessment of s 67 compensation at 50% of a most extreme case - whether question of fact or law - held in manner argued was question of fact. D.
Leave to file amended notice of appeal granted. Appeal allowed in part, order for payment of interest set aside, appeal otherwise dismissed. Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal.
THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
CA 40847/99
CC 17968/97
MASON P
POWELL JA GILES JA
Monday 23 October 2000
MATTHEW HALL PTY LTD v SMART
JUDGMENT
1 MASON P: I agree with Giles JA.
2 POWELL JA: I agree with Giles JA.
3 GILES JA: This is an appeal from an award of compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (“the Act”). Pursuant to s 32(1) of the Compensation Court Act 1984, it is relevantly limited to an appeal “in point of law”.
The award
4 On 23 October 1990 Mr Cameron Smart (“the worker”), then an apprentice plumber aged 19 employed by Matthew Hall Pty Ltd (“the employer”), was drilling over his head through metal decking into a concrete slab in order to suspend pipework. Although he was wearing goggles, swarf from the metal went into his right eye. The metal was hot and the eye was painful. First aid was given, and the next day the worker attended Sydney Eye Hospital where the metal was removed from his eye. He…
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 Matthew Hall Pty Ltd v Smart
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Matthew Hall Pty Ltd v Smart [2000] NSWCA 284
Case
[2000] NSWCA 284
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Matthew Hall Pty Ltd (the appellant) appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Workers Compensation Commission concerning a claim by Mr. Smart (the respondent) for compensation for an eye injury. The dispute centred on the extent to which Mr. Smart's condition at the time of trial was caused by the work injury, and whether a pre-existing condition warranted a deduction from his compensation entitlement under section 68A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW).
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Workers Compensation Commission erred in finding that Mr. Smart did not have a pre-existing condition that contributed to his current eye condition, and consequently, whether a deduction under section 68A was appropriate. Additionally, the Court considered whether the Commission's assessment of Mr. Smart's compensation under section 67, at 50% of a "most extreme case," involved a question of fact or law, and if the latter, whether the assessment was correctly made.
The Court of Appeal held that the Commission's finding that there was no pre-existing condition was a finding of fact, and there was no error in that determination. Consequently, no deduction under section 68A was warranted. Regarding the section 67 assessment, the Court found that the manner in which the question of the percentage of a "most extreme case" was argued before the Commission meant it was a question of fact, not law. The Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside an order for the payment of interest, but otherwise dismissed the appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to file amended notice of appeal granted. Appeal allowed in part, order for payment of interest set aside, appeal otherwise dismissed. Appellant to pay respondent's costs of the appeal.