Supair Pty Limited v Sweeney [2000] NSWCA 319

Supair Pty Limited v Sweeney [2000] NSWCA 319

No error of law was shown. The primary judge found that the worker had a pre-existing asymptomatic fracture, sustained trauma to the scaphoid in the course of employment, and that the trauma caused painful symptoms leading to surgery. Section 9A(3) did not make the circumstances of the employment irrelevant, only non-determinative. There was no evidence suggesting that the injury or a similar injury would have occurred anyway at about the same time or stage of life if the worker had not been at work, and the available evidence tended the other way. The Court was not satisfied that the primary judge failed to address the issue raised by s 9A(2)(d).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From an Award Made by Burke CCJ in the Compensation Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['employment as Substantial Contributing Factor to Injury' 'section 9 a of the Workers Compensation Act 1987' 'pre Existing Asymptomatic Injury' 'appeal on Alleged Error of Law']
['workers Compensation'] ['employment as Substantial Contributing Factor to Injury' 'section 9 a of the Workers Compensation Act 1987' 'pre Existing Asymptomatic Injury' 'appeal on Alleged Error of Law']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Workers Compensation Appeal / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Appeal From an Award Made by Burke CCJ in the Compensation Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Compensation Court erred in finding that the worker's employment was a substantial contributing factor to his injury within s 9A of the Workers Compensation Act 1987." 'Whether the judge wrongly treated the fact that the injury arose out of or in the course of employment as determinative under s 9A(3).' 'Whether the judge failed to consider s 9A(2)(d), concerning the probability that the injury or a similar injury would have happened anyway at about the same time or stage of life if the worker had not been at work or in that employment.']

Ratio Decidendi

No error of law was shown. The primary judge found that the worker had a pre-existing asymptomatic fracture, sustained trauma to the scaphoid in the course of employment, and that the trauma caused painful symptoms leading to surgery. Section 9A(3) did not make the circumstances of the employment irrelevant, only non-determinative. There was no evidence suggesting that the injury or a similar injury would have occurred anyway at about the same time or stage of life if the worker had not been at work, and the available evidence tended the other way. The Court was not satisfied that the primary judge failed to address the issue raised by s 9A(2)(d).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed with costs.']