Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Tran v Vo [2017] NSWCA 134 Hearing dates: 28 April 2017 Decision date: 15 June 2017 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
Payne JA at [7].Decision: (1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Appellants to pay respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.Catchwords: WORKERS COMPENSATION – employer injured by sugarcane juicing machine while visiting work premises on rostered day off – successful claim for occupiers liability – whether employee's injury in course of employment – injury occurred during an interval – whether employer induced or encouraged the employee to spend the interval at a particular place or perform a particular activity – whether employee's injury arose out of employment – whether a causal connection established between the injury and the respondent’s employment – payments by workers compensation insurer in respect of the injury – undertaking to repay workers compensation – whether double compensation Legislation Cited: Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW)
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW)
Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW)Cases Cited: 2 Elizabeth Bay Road Pty Ltd v The Owners – Strata Plan No 73943 (2014) 88 NSWLR 488; [2014] NSWCA 409
Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd v Zaluzna (1987) 162 CLR 479; [1987] HCA 7
Badawi v Nexon Asia Pacific Pty Limited trading as Commander Australia Pty Limited (2009) 75 NSWLR 503; [2009] NSWCA 324
Berowra Holdings Pty Ltd v Gordon (2006) 225 CLR 364; [2006] HCA 32
Clancy v Department of Public Health [1962] NSWR 2
Comcare v PVYW (2013) 250 CLR 246; [2013] HCA 41
David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1992) 175 CLR 353; [1992] HCA 48
European Bank Ltd v Robb Evans of Robb Evans & Associates (2010) 240 CLR 432; [2010] HCA 6
Franklins Self Serve Pty Ltd v Wyber (1999) 48 NSWLR 249; [1999] NSWCA 390
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corporation Ltd (1992) 173 CLR 473; [1992] HCA 21
Lawrence v George Matthews (1924) Limited [1929] 1 KB 1
Pioneer Studios Pty Ltd v Hills [2012] NSWCA 324
Smith v The Australian Woollen Mills Ltd (1933) 50 CLR 504; [1933] HCA 60
Stewart v Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board (1932) 48 CLR 216; [1932] HCA 45
Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418; [1950] HCA 35
Tanwar Enterprises Pty Ltd v Cauchi (2003) 217 CLR 315; [2003] HCA 57
Vairy v Wyong Shire Council (2005) 223 CLR 422; [2005] HCA 62
Vo v Tran (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 1198
Vo v Tran (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 1199Category: Principal judgment Parties: Hung Vien Tran (First Appellant)
Thuy My Le (Second Appellant)
Thi Ngoc Hien Vo (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
N Polin SC (Appellants)
H Marshall SC and D E Baran (Respondent)
Curwoods Lawyers (Appellants)
Shine Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2016/285466 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South…
Continue reading Tran v Vo
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Tran v Vo [2017] NSWCA 134
- Case
- [2017] NSWCA 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The appeal concerned a claim for workers' compensation brought by the respondent, Mr. Vo, against his employer, Mr. Tran, and the employer's insurer. Mr. Vo sustained injuries when he was visiting the employer's work premises on his rostered day off and was injured by a sugarcane juicing machine. The primary judge had found in favour of Mr. Vo, holding the employer liable for occupiers' liability. The central dispute on appeal was whether Mr. Vo's injury occurred in the course of his employment, thereby entitling him to workers' compensation, and whether this would constitute double compensation given payments already made by the workers' compensation insurer.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether Mr. Vo's injury, which occurred during an interval in his employment (his rostered day off), could be considered to have happened "in the course of employment." This involved assessing whether the employer had induced or encouraged Mr. Vo to be at the premises or engage in any particular activity during that interval. Secondly, the court needed to determine if Mr. Vo's injury arose out of his employment, which required establishing a causal connection between the injury and his employment. Finally, the court had to consider the implications of payments already made by the workers' compensation insurer and whether a successful claim against the employer would result in impermissible double compensation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's decision. The court reasoned that Mr. Vo's presence at the workplace on his rostered day off was not merely incidental but was sufficiently connected to his employment. The employer's actions and the nature of the workplace were found to have induced or encouraged Mr. Vo's presence, thereby bringing the injury within the course of employment. The court found that the injury arose out of his employment, establishing the necessary causal link. Regarding the issue of double compensation, the court concluded that the workers' compensation insurer's payments were made under a statutory scheme and did not preclude Mr. Vo from pursuing a claim against his employer for a breach of duty of care, nor did it constitute double compensation in the prohibited sense. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine several key legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether Mr. Vo's injury, which occurred during an interval in his employment (his rostered day off), could be considered to have happened "in the course of employment." This involved assessing whether the employer had induced or encouraged Mr. Vo to be at the premises or engage in any particular activity during that interval. Secondly, the court needed to determine if Mr. Vo's injury arose out of his employment, which required establishing a causal connection between the injury and his employment. Finally, the court had to consider the implications of payments already made by the workers' compensation insurer and whether a successful claim against the employer would result in impermissible double compensation.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's decision. The court reasoned that Mr. Vo's presence at the workplace on his rostered day off was not merely incidental but was sufficiently connected to his employment. The employer's actions and the nature of the workplace were found to have induced or encouraged Mr. Vo's presence, thereby bringing the injury within the course of employment. The court found that the injury arose out of his employment, establishing the necessary causal link. Regarding the issue of double compensation, the court concluded that the workers' compensation insurer's payments were made under a statutory scheme and did not preclude Mr. Vo from pursuing a claim against his employer for a breach of duty of care, nor did it constitute double compensation in the prohibited sense. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) Appeal dismissed.
(2) Appellants to pay respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
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.