WATER BOARD v MILE CINDRIC [1992] NSWCA 264

WATER BOARD v MILE CINDRIC SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CLARKE, MEAGHER and CRIPPS JJA 9 December 1992, 17 December 1992

[1992] NSWCA 264

Workers compensation — claim before Commissioner for continuing payments — incapacity to work — claim dismissed.

Appeal to Compensation Court — s110 Workers Compensation Act 1987 — appeal on point of law — alleged failure by Commissioner to give sufficient reasons — appeal upheld — whether judge erred in law.

Requirement to give reasons — Held: reasons of Commissioner not to be subjected to as rigorous an examination as those of a trained lawyer — in a case in which an appeal lies only in respect of a question of law it is sufficient for the tribunal to identify in its reasons the ground on which its decision is based. Commissioner's reasons sufficient — judge erred in upholding appeal.

Clarke JA In 1976 Mile Cindric (the respondent) was employed by the Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board (the appellant) as a labourer. On 16 September of that year he sustained an injury to his right elbow when the trench in which he was working collapsed. As a result he went off work and on 17 November 1976 Dr Bannister carried out an operation to his elbow. After about six months he returned to work on light duties. In the following months he suffered from a disability in his left elbow which he attributed to the nature and conditions of his employment. He claimed that in the following months the disabilities in both elbows made it impossible for him to continue working and he ceased employment in November 1977. He has not worked since that time.

The appellant paid him workers compensation until July 1987 when it ceased making payments. He thereupon brought a claim for continuing payments alleging, in the alternative, that he was totally incapacitated for work, that he was partially incapacitated for work, or that his partial incapacity for work should be deemed total because of the operation of s11(2) of the Workers Compensation Act 1926. His claim for compensation was heard by Commissioner Kidd who found against him and made an award in favour of the appellant.