Ruthven v Woolworths - [2011] NTMC 14

CITATION: Ruthven v Woolworths [2011] NTMC 014
PARTIES: LISA ANNE RUTHVEN

V
WOOLWORTHS LTD

TITLE OF COURT:   WORK HEALTH COURT
JURISDICTION:   Work Health
FILE NO(s):   20929785
DELIVERED ON:   9 May 2011
DELIVERED AT:   Darwin
HEARING DATE(s):   14 March 2011
JUDGMENT OF:   Ms Sue Oliver SM
CATCHWORDS:

WORK HEALTH -- VALIDITY OF CLAIM -- SCOPE OF MEDIATION
Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, ss 82, 103J
Prime v Colliers International (NT) Pty Ltd [2006] NTSC
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Johnston v ArtBack NT [2010] NTMC 071
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Worker:   Mr Johnson
Employer:   Mr Roper
Solicitors:
Worker:   Withnalls Lawyers
Employer:   Hunt & Hunt
Judgment category classification:    B
Judgment ID number:   [2011] NTMC 014
Number of paragraphs:   32

IN THE WORK HEALTH COURT
AT DARWIN IN THE NORTHERN
TERRITORY OF AUSTRALIA
No. 20929785
BETWEEN:

LISA ANNE RUTHVEN

Worker

AND:

WOOLWORTHS LTD

Employer

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 9^th May 2011)
Ms Sue Oliver SM:

The Employer has made an interlocutory application for an order that the Worker’s proceedings filed 3 September 2009 be struck out in whole or in part or that they be struck out in so far that the proceedings extend beyond a claim pursuant to Section 73 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act (the Act).

The Proceedings

On 2 September 2009 the Worker made application to the Work Health Court for compensation. By her statement of claim she seeks benefits pursuant to Section 65 of the Act from January 2009 to date and continuing, reimbursement of Section 73 and Section 78 expenses arising from surgery undertaken on 10 June 2009 and ongoing entitlements pursuant to the Act.
In its interlocutory application the Employer says that there is no proper application before the court because the Worker failed to provide a claim form for the compensation which is sought to the Employer in the manner prescribed by Section 82 of the Act. Alternatively, the Employer say that in so far as there was a valid claim and a dispute that went to mediation that dispute was only with respect to a claim under Section 73 of the Act and not with respect to the other claims and on that basis the Court lacks the jurisdiction to deal with a claim other than that under Section 73.
The parties agree that on or about 8 November 2007 the Worker made a claim (#159672) pursuant to Section 80 of the Act. The Employer accepted liability for the injury as disclosed in that claim. According to the Worker’s application to the Work Health Court, she resumed employment but in January 2009 resigned in anticipation of her ongoing injury resolving by rest.
On or about 30 April 2009 the Worker provided a medical certificate dated 29 April 2009 to the Employer. Counsel for the Worker said that it was not clear whether at the same time she provided an undated letter to the Employer in which she set out the circumstances of her original injury and what she…

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 Ruthven v Woolworths 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: [2011] NTMC 14
Decision Date: 9 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Lisa Anne Ruthven initiated proceedings against Woolworths Ltd in the Work Health Court seeking compensation for an injury she sustained while employed by the defendant. The primary issues in the case were whether Ruthven's failure to provide a fresh claim form to Woolworths rendered her claim invalid and whether the scope of the mediated dispute was limited to a claim under section 73 of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act, thereby barring her from seeking other forms of compensation.

The Court found that the failure to provide a fresh claim form did not invalidate the claim. The Court held that the purpose of the requirement for a claim to be in a particular format, as outlined in section 82 of the Act, was to ensure the employer received sufficient information to consider liability and to investigate the claim. Ruthven's medical certificates and letters to Woolworths provided the employer with the necessary information to understand the nature of the claim, rendering the strict compliance with section 82 unnecessary. The employer's conduct, including its response to Ruthven's correspondence, indicated that it was fully aware of the claim's details, thus satisfying the purpose of section 82.

Regarding the scope of the mediated dispute, the Court determined that the dispute was not limited to a claim under section 73. The Certificate of Mediation described the dispute as concerning "Section 73 - Medical, surgical, rehabilitation," but this description was not conclusive. The documents submitted to the mediator, including Ruthven's letters and medical certificates, as well as Woolworths' denial of liability for any form of compensation, demonstrated that the dispute extended beyond section 73 to include a refusal to accept liability for any benefits payable under the Act. Therefore, the Court found that the mediated dispute encompassed the matters Ruthven sought to litigate in the Court.

The Court dismissed the employer's interlocutory application, allowing the proceedings to continue. The matter will proceed to a hearing to determine the costs of the application.

Orders