Qiao v Jacon Industries Pty Ltd

The appeal concerned an assessment of damages for a workplace injury, brought by the appellant, Qiao, against three defendants, one of whom was likely the employer. The primary dispute revolved around the correct assessment of damages under sections 151G and 151H of the *Workers Compensation Act*. The court was required to determine which of the defendants was liable and, consequently, the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in assessing damages and whether the judge's method of calculating the damages was legally sound. Specifically, the court considered whether the judge had correctly applied the relevant statutory provisions and whether the reference to "the table" and the resulting figure of $32,500, representing 22 per cent of a "most extreme case," was a proper basis for the assessment. The court also had to determine if the judge's reasoning for arriving at the 22 per cent figure was discernible and justifiable.

The appellate court found that the trial judge's reasoning for assessing damages at 22 per cent was flawed and could not be adequately understood. The court noted that the table referenced by the judge appeared to be a table of degrees of permanent impairment, not a table for calculating percentages of an extreme case. Consequently, the court concluded that there was a flawed arrival at the 22 per cent figure based on the probabilities. The court determined that the slip rule was not applicable for correction and that a new trial as to damages was necessary. The appeal was allowed, the judgment and orders for costs were set aside, and a new trial as to damages was ordered, with the costs of the trial to abide the result of that new trial. There were no orders as to the costs of the appeal.