RAPFORD PTY LTD (t/a GILBERT FOIL CONTAINER CO) v WILLIAMS [1993] NSWCA 225

RAPFORD PTY LTD (t/a GILBERT FOIL CONTAINER CO) v WILLIAMS [1993] NSWCA 225

The trial judge was entitled to award the maximum sum for pain and suffering under s67, having found the worker suffered continuous pain of a high degree constituting a 'most extreme case'. The judge did not err in making cumulative awards for loss above and below the elbow under s66, given loss of efficient use of both portions was found. The court found no error in standing over the neck claim due to lack of evidence of permanency, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Parties
Appellant: RAPFORD PTY LTD (trading as GILBERT FOIL CONTAINER CO); Respondent: Gary Williams
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 June 1993
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Pain and Suffering Assessment, Interpretation of S66 and S67 Workers Compensation Act, Permanent Impairment, Stand Over of Issues
Workers Compensation Pain and Suffering Assessment Interpretation of S66 and S67 Workers Compensation Act Permanent Impairment Stand Over of Issues

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RAPFORD PTY LTD (trading as GILBERT FOIL CONTAINER CO)

Appellant

Gary Williams

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Workers Compensation Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether trial judge was correct in awarding the maximum amount for pain and suffering under s67 as 'a most extreme case'
  2. 2 Whether the awards under the Table for each loss above and below the elbow could cumulatively exceed 100% of the maximum prescribed by s66(1)
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge was correct in standing over the neck injury s66 claim for lack of evidence as to permanency

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge was entitled to award the maximum sum for pain and suffering under s67, having found the worker suffered continuous pain of a high degree constituting a 'most extreme case'. The judge did not err in making cumulative awards for loss above and below the elbow under s66, given loss of efficient use of both portions was found. The court found no error in standing over the neck claim due to lack of evidence of permanency, and dismissed the appeal with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.