Burton v Pinex Pty Limited [2002] NSWCC 53

Burton v Pinex Pty Limited [2002] NSWCC 53

The applicant's incapacity, impairment and loss resulted in the relevant sense from the nature and conditions of his employment with the fifth respondent, because heavy work there caused serious deterioration leading to treatment and disc prolapse requiring surgery. Earlier employment with the first four respondents contributed by aggravation, but the serious condition emerged with the fifth respondent. The September and October 1997 aggravations with the sixth respondent were temporary and had ceased by early 1998. Liability was therefore apportioned 75 per cent to the fifth respondent and 25 per cent to the first four respondents, with that 25 per cent allocated 20 per cent to Allianz...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Assessment of Compensation / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Awards made against the fifth respondent; liability apportioned between the fifth respondent and the first four respondents' insurers; award entered in favour of the sixth respondent.
Legal Topics
['weekly Benefits' 'permanent Impairment Compensation' 'medical Expenses' 'interest on Weekly Benefits' 'causation' 'apportionment of Liability' 'disease Injury Distinction' 'capacity for Work']
['workers Compensation' 'personal Injury' 'employment'] ['weekly Benefits' 'permanent Impairment Compensation' 'medical Expenses' 'interest on Weekly Benefits' 'causation' 'apportionment of Liability' 'disease Injury Distinction' 'capacity for Work']

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

Assessment of Compensation / Ex Tempore Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was employed by the fifth respondent from about October 1990 to 30 May 1991.' "Whether the applicant's present back condition and incapacity were caused by employment with any of the respondents." 'Whether the facts should be analysed as an injury simpliciter or as a disease attracting s 16.' "The extent of the applicant's incapacity, permanent back impairment and loss of use of the left leg." 'Whether any deduction should be made pursuant to s 68A.' 'How liability should be apportioned among the respondents and insurers.' 'The appropriate weekly benefits, lump-sum compensation, medical expenses, interest and costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's incapacity, impairment and loss resulted in the relevant sense from the nature and conditions of his employment with the fifth respondent, because heavy work there caused serious deterioration leading to treatment and disc prolapse requiring surgery. Earlier employment with the first four respondents contributed by aggravation, but the serious condition emerged with the fifth respondent. The September and October 1997 aggravations with the sixth respondent were temporary and had ceased by early 1998. Liability was therefore apportioned 75 per cent to the fifth respondent and 25 per cent to the first four respondents, with that 25 per cent allocated 20 per cent to Allianz...

Court Disposition

Awards made against the fifth respondent; liability apportioned between the fifth respondent and the first four respondents' insurers; award entered in favour of the sixth respondent.

Orders

  • ['The applicant was employed by the fifth respondent from about October 1990 to 30 May 1991.' "The applicant's incapacity, impairment and loss resulted, in the relevant sense, from his employment with the fifth respondent due to the nature and conditions of that employment." "The applicant's debilitated condition...