Toll Pty Ltd v Dakic

The appeal concerned a dispute between Toll Pty Ltd and Mr. Dakic, an employee of Toll, regarding compensation for a back injury Mr. Dakic sustained. The injury occurred while he was removing a heavy trailer ramp in a confined space, due to vehicle overhang, after the ramp had been used to load utilities onto a semi-trailer. The central question was whether this injury fell under the statutory insurance scheme of the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1919* (NSW) or the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW). The matter was heard by Giles and Santow JJA and Brownie AJA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The court was required to determine several legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the definition of "injury" under the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1919* encompassed vehicle-loading and unloading operations. Secondly, the court needed to ascertain whether Mr. Dakic's injury was caused by an unsafe system of work, or if it was the result of and caused during the use or operation of a vehicle, or by a defect in the vehicle. The court also had to examine the nature of any defect in the vehicle's use or operation and discuss the principles of causation in this context. Finally, the court considered issues of issue estoppel and whether a *Bullock* order for costs should have been awarded.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that the injury did not arise out of the use or operation of a motor vehicle in the manner contemplated by the *Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1919*. Instead, the court found that the injury was primarily caused by the system of work employed by Toll, specifically the unsafe method of ramp removal in a confined space. The court applied principles of statutory interpretation to the definition of "injury" under the relevant legislation and discussed the concept of causation, concluding that the proximate cause of the injury was the unsafe work practices rather than the use or operation of the vehicle itself. The court also addressed the issue of issue estoppel and costs.

The appeal was dismissed, and Toll Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the respondents' costs. The cross-appeal was allowed, and an order was made that the first defendant pay the plaintiff the costs payable by him to the second defendant. The first cross-respondent was ordered to pay the cross-appellant’s costs and was granted a certificate under the *Suitors’ Fund Act* if otherwise qualified.