Stork ICM Australia Pty Ltd v Hill - [2002] WASCA 132

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA)

CITATION: STORK ICM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD -v- HILL [2002] WASCA 132

CORAM: WALLWORK J
MURRAY J
WHEELER J

HEARD: 16 APRIL 2002

DELIVERED : 16 MAY 2002

FILE NO/S: FUL 155 of 2001

BETWEEN: STORK ICM AUSTRALIA PTY LTD
Appellant (Defendant)
AND
BRYAN RICHARD HILL
Respondent (Plaintiff)

Catchwords:

Torts - Negligence - Personal injuries - Damages - Economic loss - Earning capacity - Contingencies - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Defendant) : Mr D R Clyne
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Mr M E Herron

Solicitors:

Appellant (Defendant) : Pynt McKay
Respondent (Plaintiff) : Gibson & Gibson

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

Arthur Robinson (Grafton) Pty Ltd v Carter (1968) 122 CLR 649
Husher v Husher (1999) 197 CLR 138

Case(s) also cited:

Graham v Baker (1961) 106 CLR 340
Lend Lease Employer Systems Ltd v Lydon, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 980088; 27 February 1998

WALLWORK J: I agree with the reasons for judgment and the conclusions of Wheeler J.
There is nothing I wish to add.
MURRAY J: I am in complete agreement with the judgment of Wheeler J. The appeal should be dismissed.

WHEELER J:

Background

The respondent was a pipe fitter by trade and worked on the fire water pump station at a nickel refinery. He was injured in an accident on 25 June 1997. At the time the appellant had a contract to upgrade the pump station. While working on one of the pipes, the respondent tripped over one of the bolts protruding from the concrete base and injured his shoulder and right knee as he fell to the ground, sustaining a rotator cuff tear and trauma to the right biceps muscles and ligaments. The disabilities were permanent and prevented him from resuming his pre-accident occupation. The appellant appeals against the learned trial Judge’s assessment of damages in the sum of $374,427.50 on the basis that the figure that his Honour used in his calculation for economic loss was wrong. The grounds of appeal are as follows:
"1.The learned trial Judge's assessment for past loss earnings in the sum of $167,459.00 is wrong and is excessive and in making that award the learned trial Judge erred in fact and in law in that His Honour calculated past economic loss on the basis of an earning capacity of $750 net per week when there was no proper or rational basis on the evidence for doing so in that:
(a)the Respondent's (Plaintiff's) net average weekly earnings as found by His Honour for the nine years prior to the accident were $496.32;
(b)the Respondent's (Plaintiff's) evidence was that he ordinarily worked approximately only eight months per year; and

(c)to the extent the finding relied on the evidence of other pipe fitters and boilermakers called by the Respondent (Plaintiff), was wrong as the Respondent (Plaintiff) had rarely, if ever, earned a comparable…

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 Stork ICM Australia Pty Ltd v Hill 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 132
Decision Date: 16 MAY 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stork ICM Australia Pty Ltd v Hill was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Stork ICM Australia Pty Ltd, brought a claim against the defendant, Hill, for damages arising from a workplace injury. Hill, an employee of Stork ICM, alleged that the plaintiff was negligent in the maintenance and safety of the workplace, leading to an injury that impaired his earning capacity. The primary legal issues revolved around the assessment of damages for economic loss, specifically the reduction in earning capacity due to the injury, and the consideration of contingencies that might affect future earnings.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate measure of damages for the plaintiff's economic loss. This involved assessing the extent of the reduction in the plaintiff's earning capacity and the likelihood of future contingencies impacting his income. The court considered the principles established in previous case law concerning the calculation of damages for personal injuries, with a focus on the specific circumstances of this case. The court had to balance the plaintiff's claims with the need to apply a cautious approach to speculative contingencies that might affect future earnings.

In its judgment, the court found that the plaintiff's earning capacity had been diminished due to the injury, but the extent of this reduction was subject to certain contingencies. The court applied a cautious approach in assessing the likelihood of these contingencies materialising, ultimately determining that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the proven economic loss. The court awarded damages reflecting the established reduction in earning capacity, while also considering the speculative nature of potential future contingencies. The decision highlighted the importance of tailoring the assessment of damages to the specific facts of each case.

The final orders of the court included an award of damages to the plaintiff, reflecting the established reduction in earning capacity due to the workplace injury. The court also noted that any future contingencies impacting the plaintiff's income would need to be addressed in a subsequent proceeding if they materialised. This judgment underscores the necessity for a detailed and fact-specific approach in assessing damages for economic loss in personal injury cases.

Orders