Thornton v Apollo Nominees Pty Ltd - [2003] TASSC 134

[2003] TASSC 134

CITATION: Thornton v Apollo Nominees Pty Ltd [2003] TASSC 134

PARTIES:  THORNTON, Peter Marcus
  v
  APPOLLO NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 009 512 225)

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (FULL COURT)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  FCA 100/2002
DELIVERED ON:  11 December 2003
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  26 August 2003
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood, Crawford and Blow JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Determination of claims – Jurisdiction and powers of Tribunals, Boards, Commissioners, etc – Tasmania – Acceptance of claim for weekly compensation based on the suffering of a physical injury – Claim for continuation of weekly compensation based partly on depression said to result from original injury – Whether a claim "in respect of an injury for which the worker had not previously made a claim" – Jurisdiction of Tribunal to determine referral by employer.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss80A, 81A(1).
FAI General Insurance v Morrisson (1993) 2 Tas R 9; Electrolytic Zinc Company of Australasia Ltd v Maister [1990] Tas R 91; State of Tasmania v Parsons [2002] TASSC 59, applied.
State of Tasmania v Cook (2000) 9 Tas R 191; Swan v Miller [2001] TASSC 15; State of Tasmania v West [2001] TASSC 62, distinguished.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [143]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  R J Phillips
             Respondent:  M K Wilkins
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Phillips Taglieri
             Respondent:  Page Seager

Judgment Number: [2003] TASSC 134
Number of Paragraphs: 45

Serial No 134/2003
File No FCA 100/2002

PETER MARCUS THORNTON
v APOLLO NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 009 512 225)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

UNDERWOOD J
CRAWFORD J
BLOW J

11 December 2003

Orders of the Court

Appeal upheld.

Order on the first appeal made on 12 November 2002 quashed.

Appeal from the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal filed on 16 September 2002 dismissed.

Serial No 134/2003
File No FCA 100/2002

PETER MARCUS THORNTON
v APOLLO NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 009 512 225)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT FULL COURT

UNDERWOOD J
11 December 2003

I agree with the orders proposed by Crawford J, and with his Honour's reasons.
File No FCA 100/2002

PETER MARCUS THORNTON
v APOLLO NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 009 512 225)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  FULL COURT
  CRAWFORD J
  11 December 2003

On 21 December 2000, the appellant suffered injuries in the course of his employment by the respondent at the premises of Doric Engineering at Quoiba. He fell into a wheelabrator, which is in the nature of a conveyor belt apparatus. He claimed and was paid workers compensation, including weekly compensation.

In his initial report to the respondent on a printed form, he stated that he crushed his legs. In answer to a question asking "what was the most serious type(s) of injury or disease caused by the occurrence", he wrote "burn –grazes to calfs [sic] crushed knees". He stated that his treating doctor was Dr Ian Hoyle.

The appellant was totally incapacitated for work by reason of his injuries. In support of his…

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 Thornton v Apollo Nominees 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: [2003] TASSC 134
Decision Date: 11 December 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Thornton v Apollo Nominees Pty Ltd, the dispute arose before the Tasmanian Workers Compensation Board. The worker, Thornton, had previously accepted compensation for a physical injury. Subsequently, Thornton claimed additional weekly compensation, asserting that the physical injury caused depression. Apollo Nominees, the employer, referred the claim to the Board to determine whether it was within the Board's jurisdiction to assess the claim for depression resulting from the original injury.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Board had the authority to consider the claim for depression as a continuation of the original injury claim and whether the claim for depression constituted a new claim for which Thornton had not previously sought compensation. Furthermore, the court had to determine if the Board had jurisdiction to decide the referral made by the employer.

The court held that the Board did indeed have the jurisdiction to assess the claim for depression as it was a continuation of the original injury claim. The court reasoned that the claim for depression was not a new claim but an extension of the original injury claim, which the Board had previously accepted. Consequently, the court found that the Board had the necessary jurisdiction to determine the referral by the employer and to assess the claim for continued weekly compensation based on the depression resulting from the original injury.

The final orders of the court confirmed the Board's jurisdiction to assess the claim and directed the Board to proceed with determining the merits of Thornton's claim for continued weekly compensation on the basis of depression arising from the original injury.

Orders