Ladas v Broadlex [2001] NSWCC 9

Ladas v Broadlex [2001] NSWCC 9

The applicant suffered a total permanent impairment of 15 per cent to her back, apportioned 3 per cent to the second respondent (injury in 1996) and 12 per cent to the first respondent (injury in 1999). Her right arm suffered a 20 per cent loss of use due solely to the 1999 injury (first respondent), and a 5 per cent loss of use of her right leg was also solely due to the 1999 injury. The applicant was entitled to compensation for these impairments and further awards under s 67 for pain and suffering.

Parties
Applicant: Katrina Ladas; First Respondent: Broadlex Cleaning Services Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Berkeley Challenge Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Claim / Judgment
Outcome
Award in favour of the applicant against both respondents, with compensation sums specified for each impairment and an order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Permanent Impairment, Lump Sum Compensation, Causation, Apportionment of Liability
Statutes & Delegated Legislation Workers Compensation Permanent Impairment Lump Sum Compensation Causation Apportionment of Liability

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katrina Ladas

Applicant

Broadlex Cleaning Services Pty Limited

First Respondent

Berkeley Challenge Pty Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Workers Compensation Claim / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant suffered permanent impairment as a result of injuries sustained during her employments
  2. 2 Apportionment of liability between the two respondents for the applicant's injuries
  3. 3 Assessment of compensation for pain and suffering and permanent impairment

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant suffered a total permanent impairment of 15 per cent to her back, apportioned 3 per cent to the second respondent (injury in 1996) and 12 per cent to the first respondent (injury in 1999). Her right arm suffered a 20 per cent loss of use due solely to the 1999 injury (first respondent), and a 5 per cent loss of use of her right leg was also solely due to the 1999 injury. The applicant was entitled to compensation for these impairments and further awards under s 67 for pain and suffering.

Court Disposition

Award in favour of the applicant against both respondents, with compensation sums specified for each impairment and an order as to costs.

Orders

  • Award against 2nd respondent: $1,800 for 3% permanent back impairment
  • Award against 1st respondent: $7,200 for 12% permanent back impairment