Rothwell v BAE Systems - [2011] NTMC 39

CITATION: Rothwell v BAE Systems [2011] NTMC 039

PARTIES: MARK EDWIN ROTHWELL

v
BAE SYSTEMS AUSTRALIA LTD

TITLE OF COURT: Work Health

JURISDICTION: Work Health - Alice Springs

FILE NO: 20917242

DELIVERED ON: 27 September 2011

DELIVERED AT: Alice Springs

HEARING DATE(s): 5 - 6 September 2011

JUDGMENT OF: J M R Neill

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act and Work Health Court Rules and Supreme Court Rules; compensation for past gratuitous attendant care services – s.78; interest on past compensation – s.3, 4, 87, 89 and 109; costs other than on the standard basis – Work Health Court rule 23.03, Supreme Court Rule 26.11 (3) and Order 63.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Worker: Mr A. Lindsay
Employer: Mr S.Walsh QC

Solicitors:
Worker: Povey Stirk
Employer: Hunt & Hunt

Judgment category classification:                 A
Judgment ID number:   [2011] NTMC 039
Number of paragraphs:   107

IN THE WORK HEALTH
AT ALICE SPRINGS IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA

No. 20917242

BETWEEN:

MARK EDWIN ROTHWELL
Worker

AND:

BAE SYSTEMS AUSTALIA LTD

Employer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 27 September 2011)

Mr J NEILL SM:

Mark Rothwell was born on 7 June 1950 and is presently aged 61 years. At all material times he was employed by the Employer in these proceedings.
On 28 May 2007 Mr Rothwell experienced a sudden bleeding into his brain. This happened on a working day when he was at his usual workplace. It was subsequently discovered that he had been suffering undiagnosed and untreated high blood pressure. He was taken by ambulance to the Alice Springs Hospital where his condition deteriorated that same day and he was evacuated to the Royal Adelaide Hospital. Ultimately he was left with severe and permanent cognitive and physical disabilities due to brain damage. Because of the cognitive disability adult guardians under the Adult Guardianship Act were appointed for him on 18 July 2007.
Mr Rothwell made a claim under the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (“the Act”) on 20 November 2007. The Employer on 28 November 2007 deferred its response pursuant to subsection 85(1)(b) of the Act. It subsequently disputed Mr Rothwell’s claim by a Notice of Decision and Rights of Appeal dated 29 January 2008.
On 22 May 2009 Mr Rothwell commenced these proceedings. His wife Barbara Rothwell was appointed his litigation guardian on 24 August 2010.
The Employer defended the proceedings and denied liability for Mr Rothwell’s claim until 24 August 2011 when by its solicitor it consented to an Order in the following terms:
“The Worker suffered an injury, namely a ruptured blood vessel in the brain, which resulted in or materially contributed to his incapacity and is entitled to compensation pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.”
This became an Order of the Court on 29 August 2011. The proceedings had been listed for hearing before the Work Health Court for 5 days from 5 September 2001. The parties were able to resolve most of the issues remaining between them by 5 September 2011, so that evidence and submissions as…

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.

Continue reading Rothwell v BAE Systems

Details

AGLC: Rothwell v BAE Systems [2011] NTMC 39
Case: [2011] NTMC 39
Decision Date: 27 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Work Health Court of Western Australia, Rothwell, a former employee of BAE Systems, brought a claim against his employer seeking compensation for past gratuitous attendant care services, interest on past compensation, and costs. The dispute arose from injuries sustained by the plaintiff during his employment, leading to significant disabilities and the need for ongoing care.

The central legal issues before the court were the interpretation and application of various statutory provisions, including sections 78, 3, 4, 87, 89, and 109 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, and the rules governing costs in the Work Health Court and Supreme Court. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the past gratuitous care services provided, the rate of interest applicable to past compensation, and the appropriate basis for assessing costs other than on the standard basis.

The court found that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the past gratuitous care services provided, applying the provisions of section 78. It also determined the appropriate rate of interest on past compensation under sections 3, 4, 87, 89, and 109, taking into account relevant statutory and common law principles. Regarding costs, the court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to costs other than on the standard basis, pursuant to Work Health Court rule 23.03, Supreme Court Rule 26.11(3), and Order 63, finding that the exceptional circumstances of the case warranted such an order.

The court ordered BAE Systems to pay compensation for the past gratuitous attendant care services provided to the plaintiff, along with interest on the past compensation at the prescribed rate, and costs other than on the standard basis as determined.

Orders