Mohammed v Onsite Formwork Pty Ltd

[2015] ACTSC 416

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

Mohammed v Onsite Formwork Pty Ltd

Citation:

[2015] ACTSC 416

Hearing Date:

17 December 2015

DecisionDate:

18 December 2015

Before:

Mossop AsJ

Decision:

See [61]

Catchwords:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – Appeal from Industrial Court – section 70 of the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) – entitlement to reimbursement of expenses for medical treatment reasonably received in relation to work injury – test of reasonableness requires subjective and objective assessment – appeal allowed – agreed amount awarded for medical expenses

Legislation Cited:

Magistrates Court Act 1930 (ACT) ss 291P, 291Q

Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) ss 36B, 70, 197

Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 3964, 3970

Cases Cited:

Malek v Remondis Australia Pty Ltd [2015] ACTSC 135

Parties:

Ahmed Ismail Mohammed (Appellant)

Onsite Formwork Pty Ltd (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr S Pilkinton SC (Appellant)

Mr G Stretton SC (Respondent)

Solicitors

Capital Lawyers (Appellant)

King & Wood Mallesons (Respondent)

File Number:

SCA 44 of 2015

Decision under appeal:

Court/Tribunal:             Industrial Court of the Australian Capital

Territory

Before:  Industrial Magistrate Walker

Date of Decision:         5 May 2015

Case Title:  Mohammed v Onsite Formwork Pty Ltd

Court File Number:       WC 106 of 2014

Introduction

1. This is an appeal from the Industrial Court of the Australian Capital Territory in relation to a decision made under the Workers Compensation Act 1951 (ACT) (the Act).

1. On 5 May 2015 the Industrial Court made the following findings:

(a)the worker’s employment “was connected with the Australian Capital Territory on the basis that that was where he usually worked at the relevant time”;

(b)the worker suffered a minor injury to his right knee on 22 September 2011;

(c)the injury was not productive of any incapacity and the Court was not satisfied that medical treatment was required despite the fact that it was obtained;

(d)there was no entitlement to compensation pursuant to the Act.

Notice of Appeal

1. The notice of appeal was filed on 22 May 2015.

1. Only one ground of appeal was pursued at the hearing, the other being abandoned.  The ground of appeal that was pursued was:

[H]er Honour erred in law in finding that whilst the appellant suffered an injury on 22 September 2011 he was not entitled to recover the costs of medical treatment arising from the injury despite the fact that it was obtained.

1. Section 197 of the Act provides that if the Magistrates Court “gives a decision or makes an order or award” in relation to any matter that may be or is required to be settled by arbitration under the Act, any party to the arbitration may appeal from the decision, order or award to the Supreme Court. Plainly enough, the Industrial Court did not make an award in favour of the appellant. It did make a decision. It may have made an order but the order is not included in the appeal book even though it is referred to in the index. The appeal states that it is an appeal against orders. This…