TA -v- LUCKY IMPORT AND EXPORT CO PTY LTD [2002] WASCA 65

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 65
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	FUL:119/2001	Heard:	7 DECEMBER 2001
Coram:	PARKER J HASLUCK J PULLIN J	Delivered:	27/03/02
No of pages:	28	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal allowed in part
Category:	A
PDF Version

Parties:	VIEN CAO TA LUCKY IMPORT AND EXPORT CO PTY LTD
Catchwords:	Damages Future pecuniary loss below amount prescribed in s 93D of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 Jurisdiction of Court invoked under s 91
Legislation:	Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 91, s 93C, s 93D, s 183 Workers Compensation Act 1902
Case References:	Caravidas v Holeproof Ltd [1964] VR 146 Ivanhoe Gold Corporation Ltd v Symonds (1906) 4 CLR 642 Klimoski v Water Authority of WA (1989) 5 SR (WA) 148 Linsell v Robson [1976] 1 NSWLR 249 Mocevic v Prok Group Ltd [2001] WASCA 45 Nepi v Northern Territory, unreported; SCNT 79/96; 2 May 1997 R v Peisley (1990) 54 A Crim R 42 Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80-251 Whitbread v R (1995) 78 A Crim R 452 Caffarella v Joseph Lucas (Aust) Pty Ltd [1978] VR 227 Hastings v McInnes Transport Pty Ltd (1986) Victorian Workers' Compensation Cases 70-330 House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499 Rankine v Garton Sons & Co Ltd [1979] 2 All ER 1185 SIMU Mutual Insurance Association v Minson's Ltd [1938] NZLR 829 Van Velzen v Wagener [1975] 10 SASR 549 Vandeloo v Waltons Ltd [1976] VR 77

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : TA -v- LUCKY IMPORT AND EXPORT CO PTY LTD [2002] WASCA 65 CORAM : PARKER J

HASLUCK J

PULLIN J

HEARD : 7 DECEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 27 MARCH 2002 FILE NO/S : FUL 119 of 2001 BETWEEN : VIEN CAO TA

Appellant

AND

LUCKY IMPORT AND EXPORT CO PTY LTD

Respondent

Catchwords:

Damages - Future pecuniary loss below amount prescribed in s 93D of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 - Jurisdiction of Court invoked under s 91

Legislation:

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 91, s 93C, s 93D, s 183

Workers Compensation Act 1902

(Page 2)

Result:

Appeal allowed in part

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr B L Nugawela

Respondent : Ms B A Mangan

Solicitors:

Appellant : Friedman Lurie Singh

Respondent : Phillips Fox

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

Caravidas v Holeproof Ltd [1964] VR 146
Ivanhoe Gold Corporation Ltd v Symonds (1906) 4 CLR 642
Klimoski v Water Authority of WA (1989) 5 SR (WA) 148
Linsell v Robson [1976] 1 NSWLR 249
Mocevic v Prok Group Ltd [2001] WASCA 45
Nepi v Northern Territory, unreported; SCNT 79/96; 2 May 1997
R v Peisley (1990) 54 A Crim R 42
Thomas v O'Shea (1989) A Tort Rep 80-251
Whitbread v R (1995) 78 A Crim R…

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 Ta v Lucky Import and Export Co 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: [2002] WASCA 65
Decision Date: 27 MARCH 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ta v Lucky Import and Export Co Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Ta, who was seeking damages for future pecuniary loss following a workplace injury. The dispute was brought before the court under section 91 of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, which allows for the invocation of court jurisdiction for matters pertaining to compensation. The defendant, Lucky Import and Export Co Pty Ltd, contested the claim, particularly focusing on the quantum of damages that Ta was entitled to recover. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiff was eligible to claim future pecuniary loss damages that fell below the prescribed amount specified in section 93D of the Act. The court had to determine if the statutory provisions restricted Ta's ability to seek compensation for future pecuniary losses that did not meet the minimum threshold outlined in the legislation.

In its judgment, the court meticulously examined the statutory framework and the specific provisions of section 93D. The court considered the legislative intent behind the threshold, as well as the broader principles of workers' compensation law. It was noted that section 93D of the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 sets a minimum threshold for claims of future pecuniary loss, which was designed to balance the need for adequate compensation with the potential for excessive claims. The court held that while section 93D imposed a lower limit on the amount of damages that could be claimed, it did not entirely preclude claims for future pecuniary loss below this threshold. The court concluded that such claims could still be entertained by the court, provided they were substantiated by appropriate evidence and did not contravene the legislative intent.

The court found that the plaintiff's claim for future pecuniary loss, although below the prescribed amount, was not automatically barred by section 93D. The decision was based on the understanding that the statutory threshold applied to the minimum amount of compensation that could be claimed, rather than acting as an absolute prohibition on lower claims. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal in part, affirming that claims for future pecuniary loss below the prescribed amount could be considered, subject to the provisions of the Act and the evidence presented. The final orders of the court upheld the appeal in part, permitting the plaintiff to proceed with the claim for future pecuniary loss within the legal framework provided by the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981.

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.