Jabarkhil v Boral Besser Masonry [2001] NSWCC 160

Jabarkhil v Boral Besser Masonry [2001] NSWCC 160

The applicant's evidence was untrustworthy, his claimed dramatic memory loss was not satisfactorily explained, and the medical evidence did not establish objective ongoing orthopaedic pathology. The Court was not persuaded that the applicant had any permanent impairment or incapacity for work beyond March 1997 traceable to a work-related injury; any February or May 1996 injury was of only temporary duration.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2001
Procedural Posture
Assessment of Workers Compensation Claim for Weekly Benefits, Lump Sum Compensation, Medical Expenses and Interest / Re Trial After the Court of Appeal Ordered a Re Trial
Outcome
Award for the respondent.
Legal Topics
['weekly Benefits' 'lump Sum Compensation' 'medical Expenses' 'interest' 'work Related Injury' 'permanent Impairment' 'incapacity for Work' 'medical Evidence' 'credibility']
['workers Compensation' 'personal Injury' 'evidence'] ['weekly Benefits' 'lump Sum Compensation' 'medical Expenses' 'interest' 'work Related Injury' 'permanent Impairment' 'incapacity for Work' 'medical Evidence' 'credibility']

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 Workers Compensation Claim for Weekly Benefits, Lump Sum Compensation, Medical Expenses and Interest / Re Trial After the Court of Appeal Ordered a Re Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant suffered injury in the employ of the respondent on 11 February, 23 February and 31 May 1996.' "Whether there was a nexus between any work incident and the applicant's impairments and incapacity." 'The extent of any incapacity and the quantum of any assessment.' "Whether the applicant's evidence could be accepted."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's evidence was untrustworthy, his claimed dramatic memory loss was not satisfactorily explained, and the medical evidence did not establish objective ongoing orthopaedic pathology. The Court was not persuaded that the applicant had any permanent impairment or incapacity for work beyond March 1997 traceable to a work-related injury; any February or May 1996 injury was of only temporary duration.

Court Disposition

Award for the respondent.

Orders

  • ['Award for the respondent.' 'No order as to costs.' 'Liberty to apply granted.' 'No order of refund at this stage.']