ILJAZI v AUSTRALIAN IRON & STEEL PTY LIMITED [1996] NSWCA 261

ILJAZI v AUSTRALIAN IRON & STEEL PTY LIMITED

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

SHELLER JA, POWELL JA and COLE JA 7 March 1996

[1996] NSWCA 261 SECTION 66 — no question of principle.

Cole JA. This is an appeal from a decision of Johns J in the Compensation Court delivered on 3 February 1994, in which his Honour made an award in favour of the appellant in respect of an injury related to his left leg, but declined to make an award in respect of a claimed permanent impairment to his back, the applicant-appellant having claimed for compensation pursuant to s 66 of the Workers" Compensation Act 1987 in respect of an asserted permanent impairment of his back.

Had it not been for the full and helpful submissions advanced by Mr Poulos of Queens Counsel on behalf of the appellant, for myself I would have been content to dismiss the appeal for the reasons given by Johns J. It should be recorded that when the matter came before the Court this morning the appellant, Mr Iljazi, was unrepresented.

Mr Poulos volunteered to act for him in the best traditions of the bar and in accordance with a scheme which is operated by the New South Wales Bar Association. Inthose circumstances the matter was adjourned until this afternoon to enable Mr Poulos to have time to consider the matter and it should be recorded that the submissions put by Mr Poulos to the Court all that could sensibly be put on behalf of the appellant.

The appeal relates only to the back injury and the claim for compensation pursuant to s 66 in relation to it. It was undisputed at the hearing that the appellant suffered a back injury on 30 May 1990. The injury was diagnosed as being a ligamentous strain and the appellant was off work for something less than a month, he being certified as being fit to resume work on 26 June 1990. He did resume work on that date. Thereafter, he continued to perform his work which, whilst sedentary in some respects, did involve manual work of medium intensity. He did not see any doctor for three years. He lodged a claim, which is the subject of this appeal, on 21 April 1993 and it was shortly thereafter that he again saw doctors for the first time after his resumption of work on 26 June 1990. Materially to this appeal he saw three doctors in a period of some five months. The first doctor whom he saw was Dr Deveridge, whom he saw on 3 August 1993. He was referred to Dr Deveridge by his then solicitors.