Spasic v T R Savage & Son Pty Ltd

CITATION:	Spasic v T R Savage & Son Pty Ltd [2005] NSWCA 53
HEARING DATE(S):	25 February 2005
JUDGMENT DATE:	25 February 2005
JUDGMENT OF:	Handley JA at 1; Ipp JA at 28; Tobias JA at 29
DECISION:	Appeal dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:	DAMAGES - no question of principle
LEGISLATION CITED:	Workers Compensation Act 1987
PARTIES:	Dragan Spasic (Appellant) T R Savage & Son Pty Ltd (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40398/04
COUNSEL:	R Hanrahan (Appellant) C Leahy (Respondent)
SOLICITORS:	Athena Touriki (Appellant) Abbott Tout (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):	DC 3264/00
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Andrews ADCJ

CA 40398/04

HANDLEY JA
IPP JA
TOBIAS JA

25 FEBRUARY 2005

DRAGAN SPASIC v T R SAVAGE & SON PTY LTD

CATCHWORDS

DAMAGES – no question of principle

FACTS

The employee sued his employer in the District Court for a back injury suffered in a fall at work and for additional injuries to his back during the six months after the accident due to the nature of his work. The District Court judge rejected the second claim and found that the plaintiff had not met the thresholds in s 151G(3) and s 151H(2A) of the Workers Compensation Act for the award of non-economic and economic loss. HELD: The judge’s assessment of the plaintiff’s non-economic loss within the 10 to 15 per cent range could not be disturbed. There was no reason for concluding that the District Court judge failed to properly direct himself in relation to assessing the foreseeable consequences of the tort and error had not been established.

ORDERS

Appeal dismissed with costs.

CA 40398/04

HANDLEY JA
IPP JA
TOBIAS JA

25 FEBRUARY 2005

DRAGAN SPASIC v T R SAVAGE & SON PTY LTD

Judgment

1 HANDLEY JA: This is an appeal from the judgment of Andrews ADCJ given on 31 March 2003.

2 The appellant sues his former employer for injuries sustained in an accident at work on 5 May 1997 and further injuries to his back between that date and 30 October 1997 as a result of his work on a Zayer machine which, according to the appellant, involved heavy lifting, twisting and bending.

3 The trial judge accepted the appellant’s claim to have suffered an injury on 5 May as a result of a fall of about three metres down a wooden staircase made slippery by oil.

4 The judge rejected the second claim and that has not been pursued in this appeal.

5 The judge considered the issues of damages and held that the appropriate award for the appellant’s non-economic loss would not exceed the 17.6 per cent threshold under s 151G(4) of the Workers Compensation Act 1987, as a percentage of a most extreme case as defined in s 151G(3).

6 He also found that the appellant was not entitled to an award for economic loss because he had not received a serious injury as defined in s 151H(2A) of the Act.

7 Both claims, therefore, failed and the appellant’s damages…