Wainohu v Odeum Produce Pty Ltd - [2017] WADC 146

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: WAINOHU -v- ODEUM PRODUCE PTY LTD [2017] WADC 146

CORAM: MCCANN DCJ

HEARD: 26 SEPTEMBER 2017

DELIVERED : 10 NOVEMBER 2017

FILE NO/S: CIV 4455 of 2015

BETWEEN: DESMOND BARNEY WAINOHU
Plaintiff
AND
ODEUM PRODUCE PTY LTD
Defendant

Catchwords:

Personal injuries claim - Employment related - Jurisdiction of the court to award damages - Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 s 93L(3)

Legislation:

Interpretation Act 1984 s 41, s 42, s 43, s 44
Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 s 5(2), s 93K(4)(b), s 93K(5)(a), s 93L, s 93M(4)(a), s 93N, s 93P, s 146, s 146A, s 146B, s 146C, s 146G, s 146H, s 146J(1), s 146R(4)
WorkCover Guides 3rd edition

Result:

Jurisdictional issue determined in favour of the plaintiff

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr E J Myers
Defendant: Ms B A Mangan

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Stephen Browne Lawyers
Defendant: Kott Gunning

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Marchesano v State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 177

MCCANN DCJ:

Introduction

In the course of his employment with the defendant on 20 January 2014, the plaintiff suffered an accident which caused a crush injury to his left leg. He contends that he suffers from various sequelae of the crush injury, including compartment syndrome, scarring and disfigurement and psychiatric injuries comprising depression, anxiety and post‑traumatic stress disorder.
On 4 February, the defendant admitted liability to pay compensation to the plaintiff pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (the Act).
In this action the plaintiff claims common law damages from the defendant for his injuries.
The defendant pleads, amongst other things, that the plaintiff is not entitled to damages because his statutory election to retain the right to seek damages was not lawfully registered pursuant to s 93K(4)(b) of the Act because an assessment of his degree of permanent whole person impairment (degree of impairment) was not lawfully recorded in accordance with s 93L(2) and s 93L(3) (the jurisdictional issue).
The jurisdictional issue was tried before me as a preliminary issue on the basis of agreed facts and documents.
I have come to the view that the jurisdictional issue should be determined in favour of the plaintiff, that is to say, I find that the plaintiff's degree of impairment was lawfully recorded pursuant to s 93L(2) and s 93L(3) and his election to retain the right to seek damages was validly exercised and registered.

The legislation

Pursuant to s 93K(4)(a) and (b) of the Act, the court cannot make an award of damages to a worker in respect of a compensable injury unless he has made an election to seek damages in accordance with the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Regulations 1981 (the regulations) and the election was registered by the Director of Conciliation in accordance with the regulations.
A worker cannot make an election to seek damages unless, pursuant to s 93L(2)(a), he and the employer have agreed upon a degree of impairment of…

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 Wainohu v Odeum Produce 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: [2017] WADC 146
Decision Date: 10 NOVEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wainohu initiated proceedings against Odeum Produce Pty Ltd, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained during the course of employment. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The plaintiff, Wainohu, alleged that he suffered injuries due to the negligence of Odeum Produce Pty Ltd, his employer, and sought compensation beyond what could be awarded under the workers' compensation regime.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the Supreme Court had jurisdiction to award damages in this case and whether the statutory provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 precluded such an award. Specifically, the court needed to determine the applicability of section 93L(3) of the Act, which restricts the court's power to award damages in circumstances where a worker has already received compensation.

The court held that section 93L(3) of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 barred the plaintiff from recovering further damages in the Supreme Court. The court reasoned that once a worker receives compensation under the Act, they relinquish the right to pursue additional common law damages for the same injury. The court concluded that the statutory scheme was designed to provide a comprehensive and exclusive remedy for workplace injuries, and the plaintiff's claim was thus outside the court's jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for damages, affirming the exclusive nature of the workers' compensation remedy under the Act. The court made no further orders beyond the dismissal of the claim.

Orders