Barclay Bros Pty Ltd v. Buch, P.L. [1982] FCA 120

Barclay Bros Pty Ltd v. Buch, P.L. [1982] FCA 120

The respondent's injury on 18 June 1976 constituted a personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of employment, leading to continuing partial incapacity and permanent loss of efficient use of the right leg at or above the knee. The Supreme Court's calculations of partial incapacity payments were properly founded, but the assessment of only 30% loss for lump sum compensation was inadequate and should be 70%.

Parties
Appellant (respondent): Barclay Bros. Pty. Ltd.; Respondent (appellant): Peter Leonard Buch
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 1982
Procedural Posture
Workmen's Compensation Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court of Northern Territory
Outcome
appeal dismissed, cross appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Personal Injury by Accident, Partial Incapacity, Assessment of Lump Sum Compensation
Workers Compensation Personal Injury by Accident Partial Incapacity Assessment of Lump Sum Compensation

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

Parties

Barclay Bros. Pty. Ltd.

Appellant (respondent)

Peter Leonard Buch

Respondent (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Workmen's Compensation Appeal / Appeal and Cross Appeal From Supreme Court of Northern Territory

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was personal injury by accident caused to the workman?
  2. 2 What incapacity for work did the workman thereby suffer?
  3. 3 Did the Supreme Court correctly assess the amount to which the workman was entitled for partial incapacity payments?

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's injury on 18 June 1976 constituted a personal injury by accident arising out of or in the course of employment, leading to continuing partial incapacity and permanent loss of efficient use of the right leg at or above the knee. The Supreme Court's calculations of partial incapacity payments were properly founded, but the assessment of only 30% loss for lump sum compensation was inadequate and should be 70%.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed, cross appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The cross appeal is allowed by substituting an award of 70% of loss of the efficient use of the right leg at or above the knee for the prior award based on 30%.