Pinnacle Services Pty Ltd v Downsborough

Case [2005] WASCA 142

PINNACLE SERVICES PTY LTD -v- DOWNSBOROUGH [2005] WASCA 142



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASCA 142
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:FUL:174/200414 JUNE 2005
Coram:STEYTLER P
WHEELER JA
PULLIN JA		5/08/05
12Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed
A
PDF Version
Parties:PINNACLE SERVICES PTY LTD
JOHN FREDERICK DOWNSBOROUGH

Catchwords:
Workers' compensation
Lump sum redemption
Memorandum of Agreement pursuant to s 67 and s 76 Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) not set aside
Whether leave should have been granted to respondent to pursue common law damages
Future pecuniary loss

Legislation:
Workers' Compensation (Common Law Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 5, s 6
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 67, s 76, s 93D, s 93E(13)

Case References:
Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 203 CLR 194
Dossett v TKJ Nominees Pty Ltd (2003) 78 ALJR 161
Henderson v KCut Pty Ltd [2004] WADC 13
Victorian Stevedoring and General Contracting Co Pty Ltd and Meakes v Dignan (1931) 46 CLR 73
Abbott v The Minister for Lands [1895] AC 425
Grundt v Great Boulder Gold Mines Pty Ltd (1937) 59 CLR 641
Lend Lease Employer Systems Ltd v Lydon, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 980088; 27 February 1998
Major Motors v Short [2004] WADC 164
Mayne v Mayne Nickless Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 960223; 14 December 1995
Murcia & Associates (a firm) v Grey (2001) 25 WAR 209
Sampson v Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd, unreported; SCt of WA; Library No 970058; 21 February 1997
SGRO v New Cement Co Pty Ltd, 15 SR(WA) 44
Toolan v Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust (2001) 25 WAR 1

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : PINNACLE SERVICES PTY LTD -v- DOWNSBOROUGH [2005] WASCA 142 CORAM : STEYTLER P
    WHEELER JA
    PULLIN JA
HEARD : 14 JUNE 2005 DELIVERED : 5 AUGUST 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 174 of 2004 BETWEEN : PINNACLE SERVICES PTY LTD
    Appellant

    AND

    JOHN FREDERICK DOWNSBOROUGH
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MARTINO DCJ

Citation : [2004] WADC 197





Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Lump sum redemption - Memorandum of Agreement pursuant to s 67 and s 76 Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) not set aside - Whether leave should have been granted to respondent to pursue common law damages - Future pecuniary loss



(Page 2)

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation (Common Law Proceedings) Act 2004 (WA), s 5, s 6


Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 67, s 76, s 93D, s 93E(13)


Result:

Appeal allowed




Category: A


Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr P E Jarman & Mr G W Nutt
    Respondent : No appearance


Solicitors:

    Appellant : Jarman McKenna
    Respondent : No appearance



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

Coal & Allied Operations…

Continue reading Pinnacle Services Pty Ltd v Downsborough

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Pinnacle Services Pty Ltd v Downsborough [2005] WASCA 142
Case
[2005] WASCA 142
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Pinnacle Services Pty Ltd v Downsborough, the dispute centred around the redemption of a lump sum under a Memorandum of Agreement made pursuant to sections 67 and 76 of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). The respondent, Downsborough, sought to challenge the agreement, arguing that leave should have been granted to pursue common law damages for future pecuniary loss. The court was tasked with determining whether the agreement was validly made and if the respondent's application for leave to pursue damages should have been granted.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Memorandum of Agreement was validly entered into and if the respondent's application for leave to pursue damages should have been granted. The court considered whether the agreement was made in accordance with the statutory requirements and whether the respondent's application for leave was appropriately considered. The court examined the principles governing the redemption of lump sums under the relevant legislation and the criteria for granting leave to pursue damages.

The court found that the Memorandum of Agreement was validly made in accordance with the statutory requirements. It concluded that the respondent's application for leave to pursue damages was not appropriately considered by the primary decision-maker, and as such, the appeal was allowed. The court held that the agreement was binding and that the respondent was not entitled to pursue common law damages for future pecuniary loss. The court determined that the decision to not grant leave for the respondent to pursue damages was correct.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and upheld the validity of the Memorandum of Agreement. The respondent's application for leave to pursue common law damages was dismissed. The court's decision clarified the legal principles surrounding the redemption of lump sums and the criteria for granting leave to pursue damages under the relevant legislation.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed

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.