Normandy NFM Ltd v Turner - [2002] NTSC 29

Normandy NFM Ltd v Turner [2002] NTSC 29
PARTIES:NORMANDY NFM LTD trading as GRANITES GOLDMINE

v
THOMAS JAMES TURNER

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:AS4/02 (20111581)
DELIVERED:  10 MAY 2002
HEARING DATES:  8 MAY 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  ANGEL J
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:Mr M Grant
Respondent:  Mr J Waters QC
Solicitors:
Appellant:Cridlands
Respondent:  Povey Stirk
Judgment category classification:               C
Judgment ID Number:  ang200201
Number of pages:  9

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Normandy NFM Ltd v Turner [2002] NTSC 29

No. AS4/02
BETWEEN:

NORMANDY NFM LTD trading as GRANITES GOLDMINE

Appellant

AND:

THOMAS JAMES TAYLOR

Respondent

CORAM: ANGEL J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 10 May 2002)
ANGEL J:

This is an employer's appeal against a summary judgment of the Work Health Court at Alice Springs delivered on 7 December 2001 ordering reinstatement of the respondent worker's entitlements to weekly compensation, consequent upon a finding that a s 69 Work Health Act Notice purporting to terminate existing payments was void and of no affect
The respondent worker was employed by the appellant as a production operator at the Granites Goldmine. On 20 August 1996 whilst loading rocks on to a vehicle at the mine he sustained injury when a piece of quartz rock shattered and a shard of that rock penetrated his left forearm. The respondent underwent surgery at the Alice Springs Hospital on 29 November 1996 for the repair of a severed left antebrachial cutaneous nerve. Later in 1997 an excision was performed upon discovery that the respondent had a neuroma. It is common ground he suffers from Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type II.
In November 1996, the respondent made a claim pursuant to the Work Health Act and the appellant commenced payments pursuant to the Act. On 9 February 2000 the appellant in purported pursuance of s 69 of the Act, served a Form 5 Notice (the Notice) on the respondent which purported to cancel those payments from fourteen days after receipt of the Notice. However, without prejudice, payments were made to the respondent thereafter during negotiations, which subsequently broke down. By letter dated 6 June 2001, the appellant gave notice that payments would cease within fourteen days. On 31 June 2001, the respondent worker commenced proceedings in the Work Health Court seeking to appeal from the appellant employer's decision to suspend payment of compensation pursuant to s 69 of the Act and, in addition, payment of all medical, physiotherapy and other expenses incurred.
On 18 October 2001, the respondent worker sought summary judgment in the matter on the basis that the Notice was void and of no affect. That application was heard by the Work Health Court on 26 October 2001. On 7 December 2001, the Work Health Court held that the Notice was void and made orders in the following terms:
"1.The worker's entitlement to compensation under the Work Health Act which was suspended on or…

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 Normandy NFM Ltd v Turner 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: [2002] NTSC 29
Decision Date: 10 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Normandy NFM Ltd, trading as Granites Goldmine, appealed against a summary judgment made by the Work Health Court, which ordered the reinstatement of the respondent worker's entitlements to weekly compensation. The respondent, Thomas James Turner, had been employed by Normandy NFM Ltd as a production operator at the Granites Goldmine. He sustained an injury on 20 August 1996, which resulted in a diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome Type II. Turner had been receiving compensation under the Work Health Act until Normandy NFM Ltd issued a Form 5 Notice on 9 February 2000, purporting to cancel those payments. Turner then sought reinstatement of his compensation in the Work Health Court, arguing that the Form 5 Notice was void and of no effect. The Work Health Court agreed with Turner and ordered the reinstatement of his entitlements, along with arrears, indexing, and penalty interest. Normandy NFM Ltd argued that the Work Health Court erred in its determination, as the appeal turned solely on the question of whether the Form 5 Notice was accompanied by a medical certificate, and that the cessation of loss of earning capacity was a valid ground for cancellation of benefits without a medical certificate. However, the Court disagreed, finding that the Notice was invalid due to its ambiguous terms and failure to comply with the requirements of section 69(4) of the Work Health Act. The Court further held that even if the Notice was invalid, it was still appropriate to grant summary judgment on the appeal under section 69 of the Work Health Act, as the remaining claims and the employer's counterclaim could be determined at a later date.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, and the decision of the Work Health Court was upheld. Normandy NFM Ltd was ordered to pay Turner's weekly compensation, arrears, indexing, and penalty interest as per the Work Health Court's orders.

Orders