Moran v Amoret Installations Pty Ltd - [2000] NSWCA 106

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CITATION: Moran v Amoret Installations Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 106

FILE NUMBER(S):
40488/99

HEARING DATE(S): 12 April 2000

JUDGMENT DATE: 12/04/2000

PARTIES:
Gregory Ian Moran (Appellant)
Amoret Installations Pty Ltd (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA Giles JA Heydon JA

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Compensation Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 4965/96

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: O'Meally CCJ

COUNSEL:
A Katzmann SC/M McManamey (Appellant)
C R R Hoeben SC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
Stacks - The Law Firm (Appellant)
A O Ellison & Co (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS:
WORKERS' COMPENSATION: Whether injury occurred during course of employment - Admissibility of applicant's medical history - Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 60 - Conclusion by trial judge that there was "no evidence" as to the normality of the applicant's left shoulder constituted an error of law being a failure to recognise the operation of s 60 (ND).

LEGISLATION CITED:
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)

DECISION:
That the order of the trial judge be set aside
that there be a new trial
that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40488/99
CC 4965/96

MEAGHER JA
GILES JA
HEYDON JA

Wednesday, 12 April 2000

GREGORY IAN MORAN v
AMORET INSTALLATIONS PTY LTD

JUDGMENT

MEAGHER JA: I ask Heydon JA to give the first judgment.
HEYDON JA: This is an appeal from a decision by O'Meally CCJ in the Compensation Court making an award in favour of the respondent. The applicant below commenced his employment by the respondent on 8 November 1995. Though he resided on the Central Coast he was sent by the respondent to install air conditioning ducts at Petersham College of Tertiary and Further Education in Sydney. While doing that work he and his fellow employees were accommodated at the Enmore Hotel. It is in substance common ground that by 22 November the applicant had suffered an injury to his left shoulder.
The applicant put a case having two aspects at trial. The first was he suffered an injury to that shoulder in a particular way. The trial judge rejected that case. His alternative case was based on the decision of the High Court in Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473. The argument which the applicant was propounding was that his employer had induced or encouraged him to spend time at a particular place or in a particular way, that an injury had occurred during that time and, therefore, the injury had occurred in the course of his employment.
The trial judge observed that the applicant bore the onus of proving the injury occurred in the course of the employment "in the extended sense", meaning thereby that he was in Sydney for purposes of employment. The trial judge said that the applicant had not proved that the injury to his shoulder occurred while he was in Sydney or while he was at the Enmore Hotel. He said that the only evidence on the question…

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 Moran v Amoret Installations Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Moran v Amoret Installations Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 106
Case: [2000] NSWCA 106
Decision Date: 12 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute over a workers' compensation claim brought by the appellant, Mr Moran, against his employer, Amoret Installations Pty Ltd. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr Moran's injury occurred in the course of his employment. The matter came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the trial judge had erred in law by concluding there was "no evidence" as to the normality of the appellant's left shoulder. This conclusion was central to the trial judge's determination regarding the cause of the injury. The Court was required to consider the admissibility and effect of the applicant's medical history, specifically in light of section 60 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW).

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge's conclusion constituted an error of law because it failed to recognise the operation of section 60 of the *Evidence Act 1995* (NSW). This section permits the admission of evidence of a person's health, including their medical history, for the purpose of assisting in the determination of whether a fact in issue is true. By disregarding the available medical history concerning the appellant's left shoulder, the trial judge had erred in his assessment of the evidence.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the decision of the trial judge be set aside and that there be a new trial. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the order of the trial judge be set aside

that there be a new trial

that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.