Marshall v Lockyer

[2006] WASCA 58

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal by way of rehearing
4. › Review of findings of fact
5. › Findings based on credibility
6. › Whether findings glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences
7. › Whether inferences reasonably open
1. Appeal
2. › Adequacy of reasons
3. › Delay between hearing and judgment
4. › Whether delay renders verdict unsafe
5. › Whether failure to address all credibility issues constitutes inadequate reasons
1. Tort
2. › Negligence
3. › Breach of duty of care
4. › Employer's duty to employee
5. › Foreseeability of risk of injury
6. › System of work
7. › Defective equipment
8. › Whether risk of injury from jamming valve was reasonably foreseeable
9. › Whether reasonable precautions available
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Issue estoppel
3. › Decision of WorkCover review officer
4. › Whether findings of review officer binding in District Court proceedings
5. › Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 93D, s 93E

Quick Take

On the proper construction of s 93F(1) of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), the court assesses damages in the ordinary common law way; if the assessed damages equal or exceed the prescribed maximum (Amount A), the case is thereby established as 'a most extreme case' and Amount A is awarded. The section does not require a separate hypothetical assessment of the most extreme case of disability less than 30 per cent. In credibility-based cases, adequate reasons require explanation of why one body of evidence was preferred, but not elaborate analysis of every peripheral matter, even where there has been significant delay in delivering judgment.