Thompson v Groote Eylandt Mining Co Ltd - [2003] NTCA 5

Thompson v Groote Eylandt Mining [2003] NTCA 05
PARTIES:THOMPSON, Zane Robert

v
GROOTE EYLANDT MINING COMPANY LIMITED

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:AP9 of 2002 (99260066)
DELIVERED:  3 March 2003
HEARING DATES:  10 December 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & THOMAS JJ
CATCHWORDS:
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:S Southwood QC and M Grant
Respondent:  C McDonald QC
Solicitors:
Appellant:Morgan Buckley
Respondent:  Cridlands
Judgment category classification:      A
Judgment ID Number:  mar0305
Number of pages:  20

mar0305
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Thompson v Groote Eylandt Mining Co Limited [2003] NTCA 05
No. AP9 of 2002 (99260066)

BETWEEN:
ZANE ROBERT THOMPSON

Appellant
AND:
GROOTE EYLANDT MINING CO LIMITED

Respondent

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & THOMAS JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 3 March 2003)
Martin CJ:

I have the benefit of a draft of the detailed reasons of Mildren J and I am in general agreement with him.
In my opinion, “makes deductions from money paid to the worker” does not bear a fixed meaning but is capable of taking on different meanings depending on the circumstance; that is of significance in contemporary times when emphasis is placed upon legislative purpose, a subject dealt with in detail by his Honour.
In Bermingham v Corrective Services Commission of New South Wales (1988) 15 NSWLR 292, McHugh J at p 302 said:
“To give effect to the purpose of the legislation, a court may read words into a legislative provision if by inadvertence parliament failed to deal with an eventuality required to be dealt with if the purpose of the Act is to be achieved.”
The thrust of this observation is not diminished if a preferable view is that the process is more accurately described as implying the words (see Pearce and Geddes Statutory Interpretation Australia, 5^th Ed, par 2.28).
I am not satisfied that the choice of words in question here was deliberately intended to exclude workers rights in a case such as this. This case and Herbert v KP Welding Construction Pty Ltd (1996) 125 FLR 3000 show the words in this context are capable of an “ambulatory operation” per Spigelman CJ in R v Young (1999) 46 NSWLR 681 at 687-8.
I agree with the orders proposed by Mildren J.
Mildren J:
The appellant was the applicant in the Work Health Court where he successfully obtained a finding by Mr McGregor SM that he was, at the material time, a worker within the meaning of para (a) of the definition of "worker" contained in s 3(1) of the Work Health Act. The consequence of that finding was that the worker was entitled to compensation under the Act and subsequently, on 14 January 2002, another magistrate, Mr Trigg SM, made orders requiring the respondent to pay to the appellant arrears of compensation for loss of earning capacity, interest and future weekly payments of compensation, as well as other benefits…

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 Thompson v Groote Eylandt Mining Co 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: [2003] NTCA 5
Decision Date: 3 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zane Robert Thompson sought compensation from Groote Eylandt Mining Co Ltd after being injured at work. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Thompson was entitled to compensation under the Work Health Act. The central legal issue was whether Thompson, who was not subject to pay-as-you-earn (PAYE) tax deductions by his employer, could be considered a "worker" under the Act. The Court found that the literal interpretation of the definition of "P.A.Y.E. taxpayer" was unjust and did not align with the purpose of the Work Health Act. The Court held that the definition should be interpreted to include employers who are legally required to make PAYE deductions but fail to do so without the knowledge or consent of the employee. This interpretation prevents employers from benefiting from their own wrongdoing and aligns with the Act's purpose of providing compensation to injured workers. The Court allowed Thompson's appeal, restored the orders made by the Work Health Court, and ordered the respondent to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders