Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd v Mathiassen, Peter Edward [1997] FCA 1525

Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd v Mathiassen, Peter Edward [1997] FCA 1525

The Tribunal's finding that Mr Mathiassen suffered a work-related shoulder injury on 17 April 1994 resulting in ongoing incapacity for heavy work was open to it on the evidence, despite conflicting medical reports. The Tribunal's findings, although imprecisely expressed, were supported by sufficient medical evidence and not perverse or arbitrary. No error of law was demonstrated by the primary judge or Tribunal in making these findings or applying the statutory tests. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 December 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court to the Full Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
["workers' Compensation" 'injury and Incapacity' 'evidence Assessment' 'appeals on Questions of Law' 'permanent Impairment' 'medical Evidence in Compensation Claims']
['administrative Law' 'compensation Law'] ["workers' Compensation" 'injury and Incapacity' 'evidence Assessment' 'appeals on Questions of Law' 'permanent Impairment' 'medical Evidence in Compensation Claims']

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 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From a Single Judge of the Federal Court to the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal's findings of injury and incapacity were supported by medical evidence" 'Whether the Tribunal made inconsistent findings regarding injury and incapacity' "Whether the Tribunal erred in its application of statutory definitions under the Seafarers' Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1992" 'Whether the Tribunal or primary judge committed an error of law']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's finding that Mr Mathiassen suffered a work-related shoulder injury on 17 April 1994 resulting in ongoing incapacity for heavy work was open to it on the evidence, despite conflicting medical reports. The Tribunal's findings, although imprecisely expressed, were supported by sufficient medical evidence and not perverse or arbitrary. No error of law was demonstrated by the primary judge or Tribunal in making these findings or applying the statutory tests. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.' "The applicant is to pay the respondent's costs."]