Unilever Australia Ltd v Saab [2013] NSWCA 374

Unilever Australia Ltd v Saab [2013] NSWCA 374

For the reasons given in Unilever Australia Ltd v Petrevska [2013] NSWCA 373, the orders proposed were made: the appellant was aware of the causal connection at relevant times, and the appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: Unilever Australia Ltd; Respondent: Ali Saab
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determination
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.
Legal Topics
Time Limit to Commence Compensation Claim, Awareness of Injury, Medical Advice and Causal Connection, Hearing Loss Due to Noisy Employment

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Unilever Australia Ltd

Appellant

Ali Saab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Appeal Determination

  1. 1 Whether the worker was aware of the causal connection between gradual hearing loss and noisy employment for the purposes of s 261(6) Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998
  2. 2 Whether a worker's belief constitutes legal awareness where medical causation is a matter for expert opinion
  3. 3 Whether the claim is statute barred under the six month time limit

Ratio Decidendi

For the reasons given in Unilever Australia Ltd v Petrevska [2013] NSWCA 373, the orders proposed were made: the appellant was aware of the causal connection at relevant times, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.

Orders

  • Grant leave to appeal.
  • Direct the appellant to file, within seven days, a notice of appeal in the form supplied.