Smith v WA Plantation Resources Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 30 min read

SMITH -v- WA PLANTATION RESOURCES PTY LTD [2017] WADC 8



DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2017] WADC 8
Case No:APP:64/201619 DECEMBER 2016
Coram:TROY DCJ27/01/17
PERTH
21Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal allowed in part
PDF Version
Parties:STEPHEN JAMES SMITH
WA PLANTATION RESOURCES PTY LTD

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation
Appeal
Error of law
Causal connection between injury and incapacity
Reasonable expenses for surgical treatment

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 3(a), s 5(1), s 21, s 58(1)(b)(i), s 247 sch 1 cl 9, cl 17, cl 19

Case References:

Barrick Gold of Australia Pty Ltd v Aaron Charles Green (Unreported, CM 98/03 (Hogan PM) 18 December 2003)
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
Byrne v The Owners of Ceresa River Apartments Strata Plan 55597 [2016] WASC 153
Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266
Cole v P & O Ports Ltd [2002] WASCA 157
Comcare Australia v Rope (2004) 135 FCR 443
Commonwealth v Butler (1958) 102 CLR 465
Department of Education v Azmitia [2015] WASCA 246
Graham v Comcare [2007] AATA 1715
Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Lang [2015] WASCA 256
Hetherington v Amalgamated Collieries Ltd (1939) 62 CLR 317
Highmoon Pty Ltd v City of Fremantle [2006] WASCA 21
Jacqueline Pedley v West Coast College of TAFE [2006] WACC C21-2006
Kanowna Belle Goldmines v Feierabend [2003] WASCA 246
Kooragang Cement Pty Ltd v Bates (1994) 35 NSWLR 452.
Leggett v Argyle Diamond Mines Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 182
March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506
Massih v Electricity Networks Corporation t/a Western Power [2016] WADC 146
Minter Ellison Services Pty Ltd v Kotzman [2012] VSC 375
Napier v BHP Billiton (Worsley Alumina) Pty Ltd (2015) 49 WAR 243
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Rosmini v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1973) 6 SASR 212
Secretary to the Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls [1999] 3 VR 331
Stuart Wilson v Bentley Health Service [2007] WACC C31-2007
Ward v Corrimal-Balgownie Collieries (1938) 61 CLR 120


JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CIVIL
LOCATION : PERTH CITATION : SMITH -v- WA PLANTATION RESOURCES PTY LTD [2017] WADC 8 CORAM : TROY DCJ HEARD : 19 DECEMBER 2016 DELIVERED : 27 JANUARY 2017 FILE NO/S : APP 64 of 2016 BETWEEN : STEPHEN JAMES SMITH
    Plaintiff

    AND

    WA PLANTATION RESOURCES PTY LTD
    Defendant


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)

Coram : ARBITRATOR FLETCHER

File No : A 20341 of 2016


Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Appeal - Error of law - Causal connection between injury and incapacity - Reasonable expenses for surgical treatment

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 3(a), s 5(1), s 21, s 58(1)(b)(i), s 247 sch 1 cl 9, cl 17, cl 19

Result:

Appeal allowed in part


Representation:

Counsel:


    Plaintiff : Mr M Lourey
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Smith v WA Plantation Resources 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
[2017] WADC 8
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this matter, Smith, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision of the Workers Compensation Commissioner that had dismissed his claim for compensation against his employer, WA Plantation Resources Pty Ltd. Smith had suffered an injury at work and sought to recover compensation under the workers' compensation legislation, including for the cost of surgical treatment. The Commissioner found that there was no causal connection between the work-related injury and Smith's incapacity, and that Smith was not entitled to compensation for the cost of surgery, which had not been pre-authorised. Smith appealed to the court, arguing that the Commissioner had erred in his findings.

The court considered the nature of the appeal, which was limited to errors of law, and whether the Commissioner's findings were supported by the evidence. The court noted that the Commissioner had found that Smith had not satisfied the onus of proof regarding the causal connection between the injury and his incapacity, and that the Commissioner had not erred in his assessment of the evidence. However, the court found that the Commissioner had erred in his assessment of the reasonable expenses claim, as the evidence did not support a finding that Smith had not acted reasonably in incurring the expense of surgery. The court found that the Commissioner had failed to consider the evidence that the surgery was necessary and reasonable, and that Smith was entitled to compensation for the cost of the surgery.

The court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the Commissioner's decision regarding the reasonable expenses for surgical treatment and remitting the matter to the Commissioner for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. The court upheld the Commissioner's findings regarding the causal connection between the injury and Smith's incapacity, and found that the Commissioner's decision in that regard was not subject to appeal. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed in part, and that the matter be remitted to the Commissioner for reconsideration of the claim for reasonable expenses for surgical treatment.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed in part

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.