Wakefield v Boral Resources (Tasmania) Ltd - [1999] TASSC 131

[1999] TASSC 131

CITATION: Wakefield v Boral Resources (Tasmania) Ltd [1999] TASSC 131

PARTIES:  WAKEFIELD, Wayne Edward
  v
  BORAL RESOURCES (TASMANIA) LTD

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  ORIGINAL
FILE NO/S:  LCA11/1999
DELIVERED ON:  30 November 1999
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  22 November 1999
JUDGMENT OF:  Underwood J

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation - Proceedings to obtain compensation - Evidence and onus of proof - Onus of proof - Referral pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, s77 - Onus on person who refers - Standard of proof on the balance of probabilities.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss49(2) and 77.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [150]

Appeal and New Trial - Appeal - General principles - In general and right of appeal - When appeal lies - Error of law - Failure to give adequate reasons for decision - What constitutes.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), s77.
Burgess v Umina Park Home for the Aged (1993) 2 Tas R 246, followed.
Aust Dig Appeal and New Trial [6]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  R J Howroyd
             Respondent:  R J Lyon
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Bennett Howroyd
             Respondent:  Page Seager

Judgment Number: [1999] TASSC 131
Number of Paragraphs: 58

Serial No 131/1999
File No 11/1999

WAYNE EDWARD WAKEFIELD v
BORAL RESOURCES (TASMANIA) LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT UNDERWOOD J

30 November 1999

Introduction

This is an appeal from an order of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal dismissing the appellant's claim that an account from the Royal Hobart Hospital for hospital services was necessarily incurred as a result of an injury sustained at work. The amount of the account was $3,480. It was for in-patient hospital treatment given to the appellant following his admission to Ward 6A at the Royal Hobart Hospital on 6 November 1997. The reasonableness of the charge was not in issue. What was in issue was whether the expense had been "necessarily incurred by the worker as a result of his injury" as is provided by the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"), s75(1)(a).

Some background

On 22 February 1995, the appellant suffered an injury at work. According to a medical report in evidence before the Tribunal, the accident occurred while the appellant was erecting a crusher. A piece of steel rod, on which he was standing, broke, and he fell, catching his right thumb in a steel girder cross-section. In the accident, the appellant suffered a crush injury to the thumb, a sore right shoulder and a sore right arm and neck. Liability to pay compensation was not disputed.

The appellant's case in the Tribunal was that since the accident he has suffered continuously from pain and restriction of movement in the right upper limb. The appellant claimed that the pain and restriction of movement and their sequelae necessitated psychiatric treatment and counselling.

On 6 November 1997, the appellant was admitted to Ward 6A at the Royal Hobart Hospital with a diagnosis of major depression and suicidal ideation. He remained in…

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 Wakefield v Boral Resources (Tasmania) 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: [1999] TASSC 131
Decision Date: 30 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Tasmania, Wayne Edward Wakefield appealed against the decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal which dismissed his claim for compensation. The appellant claimed that he had incurred a hospital account for services as a result of an injury he sustained at work in 1995. The Tribunal rejected the claim and dismissed the appellant's application. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court on several grounds. The first ground was that the Tribunal misdirected itself as to the onus of proof. The second ground was that the Tribunal failed to apply a commonsense approach to the issue of causation. The third ground was that the Tribunal failed to give adequate reasons for rejecting the opinions of the appellant's treating psychiatrist and psychologist. The fourth ground was that no tribunal, properly instructed as to the law and acting reasonably, could have made the order that was made. The appeal was allowed and the order of the Tribunal was quashed. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for hearing and determination by another Commissioner in accordance with law.

Orders