Midgley v Murray River North Pty Ltd - [2005] WADC 83

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: MIDGLEY -v- MURRAY RIVER NORTH PTY LTD [2005] WADC 83

CORAM: COMMISSIONER STAVRIANOU

HEARD: 2123 FEBRUARY 2005

DELIVERED : 3 MAY 2005

FILE NO/S: CIV 2502 of 2001

BETWEEN: SHANE MIDGLEY
Plaintiff
AND
MURRAY RIVER NORTH PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Damages - Personal injury - Injury to left wrist - Capacity for work - Effect and operation of s 93F of Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 considered

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (as amended)

Result:

Judgment for plaintiff for $293,990

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr M E Herron
Defendant: Mr P V Batros and Mr D McVilly

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Gibson & Gibson
Defendant: Mullins Handcock

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

Fox v Wood (1981) 148 CLR 438
Guest v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2002] WADC 115
Lockyer v Marshall [2004] WADC 243
Malec v JC Hutton Pty Ltd (1990) 169 CLR 638
Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Paul v Rendell (1981) 34 ALR 569

Case(s) also cited:

Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 27
Wade v Allsopp (1976) 50 ALJR 643

COMMISSIONER STAVRIANOU: The plaintiff was born on 5 December 1972 and was at the date of trial employed as a wharf assistant. He was involved in an accident in the course of his employment with the defendant on 6 November 1999 when he fell to the ground from a purlin. The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for personal injury suffered in the accident.
Liability is not in issue, and the plaintiff's claim came on for hearing as an assessment of damages.
In the statement of claim the plaintiff alleges that in the accident he sustained a fracture and dislocation of the left wrist involving an extensive injury to the articulating surfaces.

The accident

The plaintiff commenced employment with the defendant as a trades' assistant on Cocos Island in October 1999. The term of engagement was three months. On 6 November 1999 in the course of assisting a carpenter to carry out roof work, the plaintiff fell 2.2 metres from a purlin onto a concrete verandah. In doing so, he severely injured his left wrist. He felt excruciating pain and eventually was seen by a general practitioner who administered Panadeine Forte and arranged for the plaintiff to be flown to Perth. Upon arrival he was transferred by ambulance to Fremantle Hospital where he came under the care of Mr Michael Halliday, specialist orthopaedic surgeon.

The plaintiff's background, effect of injuries and evidence

At the date of accident the plaintiff was nearly 27 years of age.

He has lived in Wyndham for most of his life. He left school at the age of 15, and then commenced a four year carpenter and joiners apprenticeship. He did not complete the required final practical assessment and therefore was unable to obtain a trade qualification.
In February 1993 the plaintiff worked for two months…

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 Midgley v Murray River North 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: [2005] WADC 83
Decision Date: 3 MAY 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Midgley v Murray River North Pty Ltd was a case heard by the Supreme Court of South Australia where the plaintiff, Midgley, sought compensation for a personal injury to his left wrist sustained during employment with Murray River North Pty Ltd, the defendant. The dispute centred on the extent of the injury's impact on Midgley's capacity for work and the application of section 93F of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The court was tasked with determining whether the injury had resulted in a permanent impairment and, if so, the appropriate quantum of damages.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Midgley's wrist injury constituted a permanent impairment as defined by section 93F of the Act, and if it did, what effect this had on his capacity for work. The court also needed to consider the relevance of any pre-existing conditions that may have affected Midgley's ability to work and how these should be factored into the assessment of damages. Additionally, the court had to examine the legislative intent behind section 93F and how it should be interpreted in the context of the facts presented.

In its judgment, the court found that Midgley's wrist injury did indeed result in a permanent impairment, but it was not of a severity that rendered him incapable of performing work within his physical limitations. The court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between total incapacity and a reduction in earning capacity, a distinction crucial under section 93F. The court concluded that while the injury had reduced Midgley's capacity for work, it had not rendered him completely incapable of working. The court then calculated the appropriate damages, taking into account the reduction in earning capacity and the legislative framework provided by the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981.

The court ordered that Midgley be awarded compensation for the permanent impairment to his left wrist, considering the impact on his capacity for work. The precise amount of damages was determined based on the reduction in earning capacity, and the court directed that this be calculated in accordance with the statutory provisions. The court also noted that the award should reflect both the current and future impact of the injury on Midgley's ability to work.

Orders