What happened

In March 2014, pipes had been stockpiled away from the trench where they were needed. The court accepted the workers' evidence that a backhoe was unavailable and that they were told to carry the pipes despite their complaints. After injury, light duties eventually ended and repeated rehabilitation and job-seeking efforts did not produce suitable employment.

The issues

The central liability dispute was whether mechanical assistance was actually available and whether the employer had provided a safe system. On damages, the court considered contributory negligence and whether a theoretical capacity for light duties had any practical earning value in the worker's regional labour market.

The court's decision

The council was negligent in requiring manual transport without suitable equipment, and contributory negligence was not established. Medical and vocational evidence, together with sustained unsuccessful attempts to find work, supported a total practical loss of earning capacity. The court accepted the plaintiff's damages approach but directed the parties to bring in orders reflecting the agreed arithmetic.

What this case shows

An employer's duty to provide safe work is not discharged by suggesting that an experienced employee could have refused the task. Earning capacity also requires a practical assessment of age, skills, restrictions, local work and rehabilitation results rather than a list of theoretically possible jobs.

Why another case may differ

This was a work injury damages claim limited to economic loss under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). Although the plaintiff's schedule was accepted, the published decision leaves adjustments during the reserved-judgment period and the final arithmetic to later orders. Its schedule should not be presented as a final award or cash received.

Applying it to your claim

Different facts, evidence or procedures, an appeal, or a change in the law may affect how this decision applies. This is general information, not a report of a case handled by Park & Co Lawyers.

Considering a second opinion? →