Bonora v E & E Refrigeration P/L [2001] NSWCC 78

Bonora v E & E Refrigeration P/L [2001] NSWCC 78

The applicant sustained a work-related permanent loss of 25 per cent of the efficient use of the left non-dominant arm, with no deduction under s 68A because the respondent did not establish that any part of the loss resulted from pre-existing degenerative changes. The prior right arm pain and suffering award did not bar a s 67 award for the left arm loss, and the appropriate proportion for pain and suffering was 1:5, warranting $10000. The costs objection was rejected because no left arm claim had yet been made at the earlier conciliation and such a claim would have been premature.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Claim for Lump Sum Compensation Under S 66 and S 67 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Awards and costs ordered in favour of the applicant.
Legal Topics
['permanent Loss of Efficient Use of Arm' 'pain and Suffering Compensation' 'pre Existing Condition Deduction' 'costs']
['workers Compensation'] ['permanent Loss of Efficient Use of Arm' 'pain and Suffering Compensation' 'pre Existing Condition Deduction' 'costs']

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

Claim for Lump Sum Compensation Under S 66 and S 67 / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Quantification of the applicant's entitlement for permanent loss of the efficient use of the left non-dominant arm." 'Whether any deduction should be made under s 68A for pre-existing degenerative changes.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to pain and suffering compensation under s 67.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant sustained a work-related permanent loss of 25 per cent of the efficient use of the left non-dominant arm, with no deduction under s 68A because the respondent did not establish that any part of the loss resulted from pre-existing degenerative changes. The prior right arm pain and suffering award did not bar a s 67 award for the left arm loss, and the appropriate proportion for pain and suffering was 1:5, warranting $10000. The costs objection was rejected because no left arm claim had yet been made at the earlier conciliation and such a claim would have been premature.

Court Disposition

Awards and costs ordered in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • ['Award for lump sum compensation pursuant to s 66 for permanent loss of the efficient use of the left arm at or above the elbow for $18750.' 'Award pursuant to s 67 for $10000.' "The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant's costs."]