Newton v Masonic Homes Inc

This is an appeal from the Work Health Court, which sits as a division of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The appeal concerns a dispute between the appellant, Cheryl Anne Newton, and the respondent, Masonic Homes Inc trading as Tiwi Gardens Nursing Home. The appellant had been employed by the respondent as a Personal Care Assistant. She sustained a right thumb injury at work in 2005 and claimed compensation under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act. The respondent accepted liability for the injury and paid compensation benefits until it gave notice of its intention to cease payment of weekly compensation in 2007. The appellant brought proceedings against the respondent in the Work Health Court, seeking reinstatement of the weekly compensation benefits, as well as compensation for consequential injuries to her left hand, arm and shoulder, and a psychiatric injury. The respondent filed a counterclaim that the appellant was not entitled to weekly compensation benefits because she was capable of being employed in alternative occupations. The learned Magistrate decided in favour of the appellant on the issue of the notice of termination of weekly compensation benefits and in favour of the respondent on the merits. The learned Magistrate found that the appellant was not entitled to weekly compensation benefits and rejected the appellant’s claims for consequential injuries. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal was heard on the basis of the parties’ written submissions and the transcript of the oral submissions before Angel J. The appellant’s grounds of appeal included an assertion that the learned Magistrate had applied the wrong onus of proof; that there was no evidence to support the learned Magistrate’s findings of fact; and that the learned Magistrate wrongly admitted evidence from witnesses called to give evidence about duties in occupations. The Court held that the appeal would be dismissed in relation to all grounds of appeal except ground 18. The Court found that the learned Magistrate erred in law in rejecting the appellant’s claim for an automatic car because there was no evidence upon which the learned Magistrate might have rationally concluded that the appellant could safely drive a vehicle whilst changing gears, given her findings that the problems with the appellant’s right hand affected her ability to drive. The appeal in relation to ground 18 was allowed.