Spratt v Perilya Broken Hill Ltd; Spratt v Rowe

The proceedings concerned an employee, Mr. Spratt, who sustained an injury to his cervical spine in a motor vehicle accident that occurred during the course of his employment with Perilya Broken Hill Ltd. Mr. Spratt had made claims under both workers compensation and motor accident legislation. The Workers Compensation Commission had initially determined that the injury was caused by the accident, but a Medical Assessor later concluded otherwise. Mr. Spratt contended that the Medical Assessor was bound by the earlier determination of causation due to the doctrine of issue estoppel. The proceedings were heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether issue estoppel could operate in circumstances where the motor accident claim was brought against a fellow employee, for which the employer was vicariously liable, and whether the relevant motor accidents legislation excluded the application of issue estoppel in relation to the question of causation. Further, the Court considered whether issue estoppel constituted a "common law principle" to which the Medical Assessor was bound by virtue of the Permanent Impairment Guidelines.

The Court of Appeal held that issue estoppel did not apply. It reasoned that the requirements for issue estoppel were not met, particularly concerning the identity of the parties and the nature of the proceedings. The Court found that the motor accident legislation did not operate to exclude issue estoppel, but that the doctrine was not applicable on the facts. Furthermore, the Court determined that issue estoppel was not a "common law principle" to which the Medical Assessor was bound under the Permanent Impairment Guidelines in the manner contended by Mr. Spratt.

In the result, the Court of Appeal ordered that the parties in one proceeding be amended to name Perilya Broken Hill Ltd as the first defendant, and that the summons filed on 18 January 2016 be dismissed with costs. In the other proceeding, the Court dismissed the summons seeking leave to appeal with costs.