Woden Valley Glass v Psaila

Case [1993] FCA 579

WODEN VALLEY GLASS v. RAYMOND PSAILA
No. ACTG19 of 1993
FED No. 579
Number of pages - 10
Appeal - Workers' Compensation
(1993) 44 FCR 140
(1993) 122 ALR 387

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA


AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
MILES(1), HILL(2) AND COOPER(3) JJ
CATCHWORDS

Appeal - decision of Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, dismissing an appeal from the Magistrates Court upon arbitration under Workers' Compensation Legislation - appeal to Federal Court - nature of appeal.

Workers' Compensation - whether incapacity for work total or partial - to be decided by inference from primary facts established by evidence - inability to earn - whether causally related to injury received - distinction between incapacity to earn and incapacity for work - relevant factors to be considered- relevance of state of labour market - arbitrator not bound by rules of evidence.

Workers' Compensation Act 1951 (ACT), sub-s.7(1) and Schedule 1

Workers' Compensation Act 1926 (NSW), sub-s.11(2)

Ruiz v. Canberra Rex Hotel Pty. Ltd. (1974) 5 ACTR 1

Warren v. Coombes and Another (1979) 142 CLR 531

Baker v. Canberra Abattoir Pty. Limited (Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, unreported, 20 May 1982)

Arnotts Snack Products Proprietary Limited v. Yacob (1983) 155 CLR 171

Williams v. Metropolitan Coal Company Limited (1948) 76 CLR 431

Thompson v. Armstrong and Royse Proprietary Limited (1950) 81 CLR 585 at 613

Ball v. William Hunt and Sons, Limited (1912) AC 496

Watts v. Rake (1960) 108 CLR 158

Abalos v. Australian Postal Commission (1988) 171 CLR 167

HEARING

CANBERRA, 29 June 1993

#DATE 23:8:1993

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. L. Morris, QC with Mr. M. Cranitch

Solicitors for the appellant: Macphillamy Cummins and Gibson

Counsel for the respondent: Mr. G. Lunney

Solicitors for the respondent: Crossin Barker Gosling

ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

2. The parties have liberty to apply to this Court or the Supreme Court or both for correction of the record as it relates to the name of the appellant.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

MILES J This is an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory dismissing an appeal to that Court against an award of the ACT Magistrates Court sitting as arbitrator under the Workers' Compensation Act 1951 (ACT). The appellant is the hitherto unsuccessful employer. The respondent is the injured worker. The appeal is against that part of the Supreme Court decision which upheld the finding of the Magistrate that the worker's incapacity for work was total and not partial.

  1. The worker received an injury arising out of or in the course of his employment as a glass fitter with the employer. The injury was sustained on 12 April 1990 when the worker was lifting welding equipment. The injury produced, or aggravated, symptoms related to a condition of spondylolisthesis. Pain in the lower back, radiating down…

Continue reading Woden Valley Glass v Psaila

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Woden Valley Glass v. Psaila, R. [1993] FCA 579 ((1993) 44 FCR 140; (1993) 122 ALR 387)
Case
[1993] FCA 579
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Woden Valley Glass v Psaila involved an appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, which had dismissed an appeal from the Magistrates Court. The dispute was grounded in workers' compensation legislation, specifically concerning the application and interpretation of these laws in the context of the facts presented. The Federal Court was called upon to review the decision made by the Supreme Court.

The central legal issues before the court revolved around the interpretation and application of the workers' compensation legislation. The primary question was whether the Supreme Court correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the appeal, particularly in light of the procedural and substantive arguments raised by the appellant. The court had to determine whether there were any errors in the application of the law or in the process followed by the lower courts.

In considering the appeal, the court examined the arguments presented by both parties and the reasoning provided by the Supreme Court in its decision. The Federal Court found that the Supreme Court had appropriately exercised its discretion and correctly interpreted the relevant legislation. The appeal was dismissed as there were no grounds to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the appellant had the option to apply for correction of the record concerning the name of the appellant, as permitted under Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The appeal be dismissed with costs.

2. The parties have liberty to apply to this Court or the Supreme Court or both for correction of the record as it relates to the name of the appellant.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

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.