STOCKMAN -v- ARGYLE DIAMOND SALES LTD [2002] WASCA 89

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 89
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:110/2001	Heard:	1 FEBRUARY 2002
Coram:	STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J McLURE J	Delivered:	19/04/02
No of pages:	18	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeals allowed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	ANNA MARIA STOCKMAN ARGYLE DIAMOND SALES LTD
Catchwords:	Workers' compensation Leave to commence proceedings for common law damages pursuant to s 93D(4) Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 Issue for consideration by Court on application for leave Whether limited by s 93D(5)(c) of the Act to amount of likely future pecuniary loss resulting from alleged disability
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 5 and s 93D
Case References:	Chestone Holdings Pty Ltd v Garbelini, unreported; SCt of WA; (FCt); Library No 980584; 19 October 1998 Davidson v Mould (1944) 69 CLR 96 Kavanagh v The Commonwealth (1960) 103 CLR 547 Sampson v Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 970058; 21 February 1997 Compagnie Financiere et Commerciale du Pacifique v Peruvian Guano Company (1882) 11 QBD 55 March v E & M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 Matheson v Commissioner of Main Roads & Anor [2001] WASCA 402 Morgan v Banning (1999) 20 WAR 474 Musgrove v Minister for Transport [2000] WASCA 232 Olsen v MacMahons Construction, unreported; DCt of WA (Blaxell DCJ); Library No 4705; 20 November 1995 Sgro v New Cement Co Pty Ltd, unreported; DCt of WA (L A Jackson DCJ); Library No 4564; 9 August 1995 Summit Homes v Lucev (1996) 16 WAR 566 Toolan v Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust [2001] WASCA 131 Ward v Minister for Health (1996) 16 SR (WA) 297 Western Australia v Watson [1990] WAR 248

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : STOCKMAN -v- ARGYLE DIAMOND SALES LTD [2002] WASCA 89 CORAM : STEYTLER J

TEMPLEMAN J

McLURE J

HEARD : 1 FEBRUARY 2002 DELIVERED : 19 APRIL 2002 FILE NO/S : FUL 110 of 2001

FUL 111 of 2001

BETWEEN : ANNA MARIA STOCKMAN

Appellant

AND

ARGYLE DIAMOND SALES LTD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Leave to commence proceedings for common law damages pursuant to s 93D(4) Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 - Issue for consideration by Court on application for leave - Whether limited by s 93D(5)(c) of the Act to amount of likely future pecuniary loss resulting from alleged disability

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 5 and s 93D

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeals allowed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr R R Cywicki

Respondent : Mr T Lampropoulos

Solicitors:

Appellant : S C Nigam & Co

Respondent : Srdarov Richards Burton

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Chestone Holdings Pty Ltd v Garbelini, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980584; 19 October 1998
Davidson v Mould (1944) 69 CLR 96
Kavanagh…

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 Stockman v Argyle Diamond Sales 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: [2002] WASCA 89
Decision Date: 19 APRIL 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stockman sought damages from Argyle Diamond Sales Ltd after sustaining an injury at work. The dispute involved the legal framework for seeking common law damages for injuries under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981. The Court of Appeal had to determine whether the statutory scheme, specifically section 93D(5)(c), limited the damages to the amount of likely future pecuniary loss resulting from the alleged disability. This issue was pivotal as it concerned the balance between statutory compensation and common law rights.

The court examined the statutory provisions and their interaction with common law rights. It considered whether the statutory compensation regime, designed to provide a comprehensive and exclusive remedy, was intended to preclude common law claims for damages, or whether such claims were permissible where they did not overlap with the statutory scheme. The court noted that the statutory compensation system was intended to be exclusive but recognised that common law claims could proceed where they did not duplicate the statutory remedy.

The court concluded that the statutory compensation scheme was not intended to be exclusive of all common law claims. It held that damages for non-pecuniary losses, such as pain and suffering, could be claimed at common law, provided they did not duplicate the statutory compensation already received. The court found that the statutory scheme did not preclude claims for damages that did not overlap with the compensation already provided under the Act.

The appeals were allowed, and the decision of the lower court was set aside. The matter was remitted for further consideration in light of the Court of Appeal's findings. The court emphasised that while statutory compensation was intended to be comprehensive, it did not preclude all common law claims, particularly those for non-pecuniary losses.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeals allowed

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.