Murray River North Pty Ltd v Midgley - [2006] WASCA 104

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: MURRAY RIVER NORTH PTY LTD -v- MIDGLEY [2006] WASCA 104

CORAM: STEYTLER P
WHEELER JA
PULLIN JA

HEARD: 20 MARCH 2006

DELIVERED : 12 JUNE 2006

FILE NO/S: CACV 57 of 2005

BETWEEN: MURRAY RIVER NORTH PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
SHANE MIDGLEY
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :COMMISSIONER STAVRIANOU
Citation  :MIDGLEY -v- MURRAY RIVER NORTH PTY LTD [2005] WADC 83
File No  :CIV 2502 of 2001

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Constraints on award of common law damages - Award of damages in cases where degree of disability less than 30 per cent - whether Court erred in its assessment of severity of disability to wrist

Legislation:

Motor Vehicle (Third Party Insurance) Act 1943 (WA), s 3C
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93D, s 93E, s 93F

Workers' Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 67(3)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr J G Staude
Respondent: Mr M E Herron

Solicitors:

Appellant: Mullins Handcock
Respondent: Gibson & Gibson

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

Dell v Dalton (1991) 23 NSWLR 528
Ellis v Rantzos [2005] NSWCA 266
Fitness First Australia Pty Ltd v Vittenberg [2005] NSWCA 376
Girrawheen Tavern v Joseph [2003] WASCA 244
Guest v NRMA Insurance Ltd [2002] WADC 115
Hendrie v Rusli (2000) 32 MVR 240
Henry Walker Eltin Contracting Pty Ltd v Hrstic [2005] NSWCA 253
Lockyer v Marshall (2004) 37 SR (WA) 90
Marshall v Lockyer [2006] WASCA 58
Midgley v Murray River North Pty Ltd (2005) 39 SR (WA) 104
Offset Alpine Printing Pty Ltd v Porteous (1992) 8 NSWCCR 489
Southgate v Waterford (1990) 21 NSWLR 427
Wylde v Aristondo'Arriaza (1997) 25 MVR 539

Case(s) also cited:

Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649
Australian Coal & Shale Employees' Federation v The Commonwealth (1953) 94 CLR 621
Gamser v The Nominal Defendant (1977) 136 CLR 145
Geldenhuys v Soo, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 990147; 23 March 1999
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer (1977) 139 CLR 161
Jacka v Horsten (1980) 88 LSJS 419
Marsland v Andjelic (1993) 31 NSWLR 162
Miller v Jennings (1954) 92 CLR 190
Planet Fisheries Pty Ltd v La Rosa (1968) 119 CLR 118
Wilson v Peisley (1975) 50 ALJR 207

STEYTLER P: I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Pullin JA. There is consequently no need for me to restate, in any detail, the facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal.
The respondent, a 27‑year‑old man, injured his left wrist. As Pullin JA has said, the injury disabled him for many months, required numerous operations to deal with the injury, including the placement and removal of a plate and screws, and left him with a permanent disability and the prospect of further treatment. A Commissioner of the District Court assessed the respondent's damages at $322,112.73, including an amount of…

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 Murray River North Pty Ltd v Midgley 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: [2006] WASCA 104
Decision Date: 12 JUNE 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Murray River North Pty Ltd v Midgley involved a dispute between an employer and an employee regarding the extent of damages to be awarded for injuries sustained by the employee. The employee, Mr Midgley, had injured his wrist while working for Murray River North Pty Ltd. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, where the central issue was whether the Court had correctly assessed the degree of disability to Mr Midgley’s wrist when awarding damages. The employer contested the severity of the disability, arguing that it was less than the 30 per cent threshold that would justify the awarded damages.

The legal issues before the court included determining the correct interpretation of the statutory constraints on the award of common law damages in workers' compensation cases and assessing whether the Court had appropriately evaluated the degree of disability to the wrist. The employer argued that the Court had overestimated the severity of the disability, which had led to an excessive award of damages. The employee, on the other hand, maintained that the Court had correctly assessed the extent of the disability and the corresponding damages.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the statutory constraints on the award of common law damages did not limit the Court's ability to assess the degree of disability accurately. The court held that the assessment of the degree of disability was a factual determination, which the Court had the authority to make based on the evidence presented. The court further concluded that there was no error in the assessment of the severity of the disability to Mr Midgley’s wrist. The court was satisfied that the evidence supported the degree of disability as assessed and, accordingly, the award of damages was appropriate. The employer's appeal was dismissed.

Orders