Zickar v MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BRENNAN CJ, DAWSON, TOOHEY, GAUDRON, McHUGH, GUMMOW AND KIRBY JJ

DARRIN ZICKAR v. MGH PLASTIC INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED

(1996) 187 CLR 310

14 November 1996

Workers Compensation—Statutory construction—Rupture of cerebral aneurism—Attributable to internal agency—"Injury"—Whether constitutes a "personal injury" within ordinary meaning—'Means and includes' definition—Whether mutually exclusive—Whether existence of disease precludes reliance upon rupture as a personal injury—Position of definition in Act. Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW).

Headnote

Hearing

CANBERRA, 11 October 1995 and 5 March 1996
#DATE 14:11:1996



Counsel for the Appellant: P.J. Deakin, QC
with L.P. McFee



Solicitors for the Appellant: Lewis and Fawkner


Counsel for the Respondent: D.F. Jackson, QC
with S.G. Campbell



Solicitors for the Respondent: Curwood and Partners

Orders

1. Appeal allowed with costs.

2. Set aside the order of the New South Wales Court of Appeal
and in lieu thereof order that the appeal to that Court be
dismissed with costs.
Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

Decisions

BRENNAN CJ, DAWSON AND GAUDRON JJ The appellant was 21 years old when, on 15 October 1987, he collapsed at work. A cerebral aneurism had ruptured. It resulted in severe brain damage. The appellant has made some recovery, but it is unlikely that he will return to work. The aneurism was a congenital weakness.


2. The appellant made a claim for compensation under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) ("the 1987 Act"). In the Compensation Court of New South Wales, Judge Thompson held that an injury occurred in the appellant's brain when the aneurism ruptured and that the rupture was not a disease. Judge Thompson awarded compensation without deciding whether there was any causal relationship between the appellant's employment and the rupture. He made no finding as to whether stress experienced in the appellant's employment played any part in producing the rupture. It was sufficient that it occurred while the appellant was at work. On appeal by the respondent, MGH Plastic Industries Pty Ltd, the New South Wales Court of Appeal by majority (Meagher and Powell JJA, Priestley JA dissenting) allowed the appeal. The issue that now falls for determination is whether the appellant's claim for compensation depends on proof of the elements contained in par (a) of the definition of "injury" in s 4 of the 1987 Act or proof of the elements contained in par (b)(ii). Section 4 reads as follows:
"In this Act -
'injury' -
(a) means personal injury arising out of or in the course of
employment;
(b) includes -
(i) a disease which is contracted by a worker in the course
of employment and to which the employment was a contributing factor; and
(ii) the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or
deterioration of any disease, where the employment was a contributing factor to the aggravation, acceleration, exacerbation or deterioration; and
(c) does not include (except in the case of a worker employed
in or about a mine to which the Coal…