Woodside Energy Ltd v Zaghloul

In the case of Woodside Energy Ltd v Zaghloul, the primary issue before the court was whether the Court had the authority to award damages in tort or contract to Dr Zaghloul for the mental and physical injuries he alleged he had suffered as a result of the conduct of Woodside’s employees. Dr Zaghloul had commenced his application for damages against Woodside on 27 August 2012, before receiving notification on 25 February 2013 that his election under the Workers’ Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) had been registered. Woodside argued that for the Court to have the power to award damages, Dr Zaghloul was required to commence his application within a 30-day period from the date of notification, which was not the case here.

The legal issue before the court was the interpretation of s 93K(4)(c) of the Compensation Act, specifically the meaning of "within the period of 30 days" from the date of notification of the registration of the election. Woodside contended that the primary judge erred in following the decision of the majority of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia in St John of God Health Care Inc v Austin (2014) 46 WAR 208, which held that the 30-day period should be interpreted as starting from the date of notification of the registration of the election rather than the date of the election itself. Woodside argued that this interpretation was plainly wrong.

The court dismissed the appeal and held that the primary judge did not err in following the decision in St John of God Health Care Inc v Austin. The court held that the 30-day period should be interpreted as starting from the date of notification of the registration of the election, as this was consistent with the plain meaning of the statutory language and the principles of statutory construction. The court found that Dr Zaghloul’s application for damages was commenced outside the prescribed 30-day window and therefore, the Court was precluded from awarding him damages in respect of his claim. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and ordered that Dr Zaghloul pay Woodside’s costs.