Skilled Engineering Ltd v Glaxo Wellcome Australia Pty Ltd - [2005] TASSC 86

[2005] TASSC 86

CITATION:Skilled Engineering Limited v Glaxo Wellcome Australia Pty Ltd [2005] TASSC 86

PARTIES:  SKILLED ENGINEERING LIMITED
  (ACN 005 585 811)
  v
  GLAXO WELLCOME AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
  (ACN 004 148 065)

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  154/2004
DELIVERED ON:  16 September 2005
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  24 August 2005
JUDGMENT OF:  Evans and Tennent JJ, Hill AJ

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Alternative rights against employer and/or third parties and consequences thereof – Rights of and against third parties – Right of employer to indemnity or contribution from third party – Generally – Employer may obtain indemnity from principal liable to pay damages.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act1988 (Tas), s134.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [279]

Workers Compensation – Alternative rights against employer and/or third parties and consequences thereof – Actions for damages against employer – Statutory constraint on actions for damages – Generally – Whether statutory conditions on bringing an action against an employer preclude the accrual of a cause of action.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss138AA, 138AB.
Johnson v Hill [2002] 2 Qd R 486; Hanrahan v Davis [1997] 1 VR 285; Western Metals Zinc NL v Wesfarmers Transport Ltd [2003] WASCA 152, considered.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [237]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant:  D J Porter QC
             Respondent:  K E Read
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Jackson & Tremayne
             Respondent:  Hunt & Hunt

Judgment Number: [2005] TASSC 86
Number of paragraphs: 30

Serial No 86/2005
File No 154/2004

SKILLED ENGINEERING LIMITED v
GLAXO WELLCOME AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

EVANS J
TENNENT J
HILL AJ
16 September 2005

Orders of the Court:

Appeal dismissed.

Serial No 86/2005
File No 154/2004

SKILLED ENGINEERING LIMITED v
GLAXO WELLCOME AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

EVANS J
16 September 2005

This is an appeal against a decision rejecting a claim by Skilled Engineering Limited ("Skilled"), the employer, for indemnification from Glaxo Wellcome Australia Pty Ltd ("Glaxo"), the principal, pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, s134, in respect of compensation paid by Skilled under the Act to Steven Keeley, a worker injured in the course of his employment with Skilled on 9 March 2002.

Section 134 provides:
"(1) Subject to this section, where an injury for which compensation is payable to a worker is caused under circumstances creating a liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect of that injury to that worker, the employer may recover indemnity against that person in respect of the compensation paid by the employer to the worker in respect of that injury.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), where the circumstances referred to in subsection (1) create the liability to pay damages both in the employer and some other person, whether arising as a result of a tort or otherwise, the employer has the like right of indemnity or contribution against that other person in respect of the compensation paid by the…

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 Skilled Engineering Ltd v Glaxo Wellcome Australia Pty Ltd 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] TASSC 86
Decision Date: 16 September 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Skilled Engineering Ltd v Glaxo Wellcome Australia Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining the extent of the employer's rights in relation to indemnity or contribution from a third party in a workers' compensation context. The dispute arose after an employee of Skilled Engineering Ltd, the appellant, was injured while operating a forklift provided by Glaxo Wellcome Australia Pty Ltd, the respondent. The central issue was whether the employer had a right to seek indemnity or contribution from the third party, in this case, the principal who was liable to pay damages.

The legal question before the court was whether an employer, who had paid compensation to an employee injured by a third party's negligence, could seek indemnity or contribution from that third party. This involved examining the statutory framework governing workers' compensation and common law principles concerning indemnity and contribution between tortfeasors. The court was required to balance the employer's right to recoup expenses against the principle that a worker should not be doubly compensated for the same injury.

The court determined that under the relevant legislation, an employer who has paid compensation to an injured employee may indeed seek indemnity or contribution from the third party liable for the injury. The court reasoned that such a right is necessary to prevent the employer from bearing a disproportionate burden, ensuring that the employer does not suffer an undue financial disadvantage due to the negligence of a third party. The court emphasised the importance of preserving the integrity of the workers' compensation system while also recognising the employer's legitimate interest in recovering costs associated with the injury. The decision underscored that the employer's right to indemnity or contribution is subject to the statutory provisions and common law principles governing such claims.

The court's decision confirmed that the employer has the right to seek indemnity or contribution from the third party liable for the employee's injury. This ruling ensures that employers are not left to bear the full financial burden of compensating injured employees when another party's negligence is responsible. The court's judgment provided clarity on the employer's rights in this context, reaffirming the balance between protecting the employee and ensuring that employers are not unduly disadvantaged.

Orders