Moon v Conmah Pty Ltd
Case
•
[2009] NSWWCCPD 134
•21 October 2009
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Moon v Conmah Pty Ltd [2009] NSWWCCPD 134
[2009] NSWWCCPD 134
21 October 2009
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of Moon v Conmah Pty Ltd, the applicant, Moon, sought compensation for injuries he sustained in the course of his employment with the respondent, Conmah Pty Ltd. The dispute centred on the extent of the injuries Moon sustained and whether he was entitled to compensation for a consequential loss. The case was heard in the Industrial Relations Commission of Queensland.
The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether Moon was entitled to compensation for the tendonitis and rotator cuff syndrome he developed in his left shoulder, which he alleged arose as a consequence of an injury to his right shoulder. The court was also required to consider whether Conmah was estopped from challenging the consent order that had been made in relation to the original injury.
The court found that Moon was indeed entitled to compensation for the injuries he sustained to his left shoulder. The court held that the consequential loss doctrine applied, meaning that Moon was entitled to compensation for the secondary injury. The court further found that Conmah was not estopped from challenging the consent order, as there had been no representation or assumption made by Conmah that would have led Moon to believe that he was not entitled to compensation for the secondary injury.
Consequently, the court revoked the previous arbitrator’s determination and made a new order that the matter be remitted to the Registrar for referral to an Approved Medical Specialist for assessment of whole person impairment. The respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or assessed.
The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether Moon was entitled to compensation for the tendonitis and rotator cuff syndrome he developed in his left shoulder, which he alleged arose as a consequence of an injury to his right shoulder. The court was also required to consider whether Conmah was estopped from challenging the consent order that had been made in relation to the original injury.
The court found that Moon was indeed entitled to compensation for the injuries he sustained to his left shoulder. The court held that the consequential loss doctrine applied, meaning that Moon was entitled to compensation for the secondary injury. The court further found that Conmah was not estopped from challenging the consent order, as there had been no representation or assumption made by Conmah that would have led Moon to believe that he was not entitled to compensation for the secondary injury.
Consequently, the court revoked the previous arbitrator’s determination and made a new order that the matter be remitted to the Registrar for referral to an Approved Medical Specialist for assessment of whole person impairment. The respondent was also ordered to pay the applicant's costs as agreed or assessed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
-
Workplace Law
Legal Concepts
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Remand
-
Workers Compensation
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Lafaitele v Budget Rent-A-Car Operations Pty Ltd [2025] NSWPIC 4
Cases Citing This Decision
410
Zanardo v Tolevski
[2013] NSWCA 449
Tamworth Regional Council v Meredith
[2025] NSWPICPD 20
Skoko v Charles Sturt University
[2024] NSWPICPD 59
Cases Cited
7
Statutory Material Cited
0
Rail Services Australia v Dimovski
[2004] NSWCA 267
Rail Services Australia v Dimovski
[2004] NSWCA 267
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd
[1991] HCA 12