Toolan v Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust

In the case of Toolan v Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust, the Court was presented with a dispute involving a limitation on awards of common law damages within the context of workers' compensation. The parties involved were Toolan, the plaintiff, and the Metropolitan (Perth) Passenger Transport Trust, the defendant. The central issue revolved around the interpretation and application of statutory amendments affecting the ability to seek common law damages. Specifically, the court had to determine whether an amendment to the Workers' Compensation Act 1981 (WA) would affect actions for damages where leave to commence the action was granted before the assent to the amending Act.

The legal issues at hand were primarily concerned with the timing of the grant of leave to commence proceedings and the impact of subsequent legislative changes. The court had to decide whether the refusal of leave to commence the action was valid, given that the amendment to the Act was assented to while an appeal against this refusal was pending. The court also needed to interpret the relevant sections of the Workers' Compensation Act and consider the implications of the statutory amendment on existing legal proceedings.

In its reasoning, the Court referred to previous case law, particularly Samson v Industrial Progress Corporation Pty Ltd, which provided guidance on the approach to be taken when considering whether leave should be granted in such circumstances. The Court emphasised that the term "likely" in the context of the statutory provision should be interpreted as a substantial, rather than a remote, chance of success. It also noted that in the absence of a clear view of the relevant facts, the court should act on the view reasonably open on the evidence which most favours the applicant. The Court concluded that the refusal of leave to commence the action was wrongly decided and that the amendment to the Act would not affect the proceedings as the leave was sought and refused prior to the assent to the amending Act. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and ordered that leave to commence the action be granted.