HARBISON v HARBISON & ANOR [2001] NSWCA 185

HARBISON v HARBISON & ANOR [2001] NSWCA 185

Leave was granted to argue that Bresmac Pty Ltd v Starr (1992) 29 NSWLR 318 was wrongly decided because s61 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 did not appear to have been considered in Bresmac and had not been addressed in submissions. The matter was to be relisted before a five-judge bench, and because the appellant's written submissions did not foreshadow the challenge and no advance notice was given, the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs thrown away.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2001
Procedural Posture
Workers Compensation Appeal / NSW Court of Appeal; Leave Granted to Argue the Correctness of Bresmac Pty Ltd V Starr (1992) 29 NSWLR 318 and Hearing to Be Relisted
Outcome
Hearing to be relisted; appellant to pay the first respondent's costs thrown away in relation to the hearing on 31 May 2001.
Legal Topics
['curative Apparatus' 'medical or Related Treatment' 'leave to Challenge Precedent' 'costs Thrown Away']
['workers Compensation'] ['curative Apparatus' 'medical or Related Treatment' 'leave to Challenge Precedent' 'costs Thrown Away']

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

Workers Compensation Appeal / NSW Court of Appeal; Leave Granted to Argue the Correctness of Bresmac Pty Ltd V Starr (1992) 29 NSWLR 318 and Hearing to Be Relisted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['The meaning of "curative apparatus" in the definition of "medical or related treatment" in s59 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987.' 'Whether leave should be granted to argue that Bresmac Pty Ltd v Starr (1992) 29 NSWLR 318 was wrongly decided on the relevant issue.' 'Whether the question should be referred to a bench of five judges for reconsideration.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted to argue that Bresmac Pty Ltd v Starr (1992) 29 NSWLR 318 was wrongly decided because s61 of the Workers Compensation Act 1987 did not appear to have been considered in Bresmac and had not been addressed in submissions. The matter was to be relisted before a five-judge bench, and because the appellant's written submissions did not foreshadow the challenge and no advance notice was given, the appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent's costs thrown away.

Court Disposition

Hearing to be relisted; appellant to pay the first respondent's costs thrown away in relation to the hearing on 31 May 2001.

Orders

  • ['Hearing of the appeal to be relisted on a date fixed by the Registrar in consultation with the parties.' "Appellant to pay the first respondent's costs thrown away in relation to the hearing on 31 May 2001."]