Orana House Inc v Starcevic

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

ORANA HOUSE INC -v- STARCEVIC [2005] WASCA 183



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASCA 183
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:FUL:100/200413 JUNE 2005
Coram:STEYTLER P
WHEELER JA
ROBERTS-SMITH JA
22/09/05
14Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
A
PDF Version
Parties:ORANA HOUSE INC
SLAVICA STARCEVIC

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation
Entitlement to lump sum compensation under Sch 2 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981
Whether entitlement exists after worker has registered an election to retain right to damages at common law

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 18, s 24, s 24B, s 25, s 67, s 68, s 93E(3), s 93E(4), s 93E(8), Sch 1, Sch 2
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Regulations 1982 (WA), reg 4
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 24, s 24B, s 93E(8)
Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1975 (WA), s 7(3)

Case References:

Chalmers v Conaust WA Pty Ltd, unreported; CM-31/01; 8 August 2001
Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd v May (1976) 136 CLR 379
Geraldton Building Co Pty Ltd v May (1977) 136 CLR 379
New South Wales Associated Blue-Metal Quarries Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1956) 94 CLR 509

Abraham v Lee & Sons (1988) 8 WCR (WA) 13
Bird v The Commonwealth (1988) 165 CLR 1
Hatton v Great Boulder Gold Mines Pty Ltd [1981] WAR 349
Hewitt v Benale Pty Ltd; WMC Resources Ltd v Koljibabic (2002) 27 WAR 91
Moyle v Minister for Works [1979] WAR 183
Munro v Department of Fisheries & Wildlife [1978] WAR 1
Wilson v Wilson's Tile Works Pty Ltd (1960) 104 CLR 328

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : ORANA HOUSE INC -v- STARCEVIC [2005] WASCA 183 CORAM : STEYTLER P
    WHEELER JA
    ROBERTS-SMITH JA
HEARD : 13 JUNE 2005 DELIVERED : 22 SEPTEMBER 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 100 of 2004 BETWEEN : ORANA HOUSE INC
    Appellant

    AND

    SLAVICA STARCEVIC
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COMPENSATION MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Coram : MS P M HOGAN CM

File No : CM 195 of 2003





Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Entitlement to lump sum compensation under Sch 2 Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 - Whether entitlement exists after worker has registered an election to retain right to damages at common law



(Page 2)

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 18, s 24, s 24B, s 25, s 67, s 68, s 93E(3), s 93E(4), s 93E(8), Sch 1, Sch 2


Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Regulations 1982 (WA), reg 4
Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 24, s 24B, s 93E(8)
Workers' Compensation Act 1912-1975 (WA), s 7(3)


Result:

Appeal dismissed




Category: A


Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr P E Jarman
    Respondent : Mr S Melville


Solicitors:

    Appellant : Jarman McKenna
    Respondent : Chapmans





(Page 3)

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



Chalmers v Conaust WA…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Orana House Inc v Starcevic 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
[2005] WASCA 183
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard by the Court of Appeal involved Orana House Inc, the respondent, and Starcevic, the appellant. The central issue was whether the appellant was entitled to a lump sum compensation under Schedule 2 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, following his election to retain the right to damages at common law. The appellant had sustained injuries in a workplace incident and had elected to retain his right to damages, yet he sought to also claim lump sum compensation under the Act.

The legal question before the court was whether the appellant's election to retain his right to common law damages precluded him from claiming lump sum compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The court needed to interpret the relevant statutory provisions and determine whether these provisions allowed for such a dual claim. The court examined the statutory framework, focusing on the interplay between the appellant's election and the entitlement to compensation under the Act.

The court found that the statutory provisions did not permit the dual claim. It held that the appellant's election to retain his right to damages at common law precluded him from also claiming lump sum compensation under the Act. The court reasoned that the legislative intent behind the Act and the appellant's election was to provide an exclusive remedy for workplace injuries, either through the statutory compensation scheme or common law damages, but not both. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.