Allouche v Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd and PPS (No 2) Pty Ltd t/as Prestige Cleaning Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCC 5

Compensation Court of New South Wales

CITATION : Allouche v Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd and PPS (No 2) Pty Ltd t/as Prestige Cleaning Services Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCC 5 Ahmed Allouche PARTIES : v Leigh-Mardon Pty Ltd and PPS (No 2) Pty Ltd t/as Prestige Cleaning Services Pty Ltd MATTER NUMBER(S) : 30033 of 1999 JUDGMENT OF: Neilson J at 1 CATCHWORDS: Elements of Workers Compensation :- LEGISLATION CITED: CASES CITED: DATES OF HEARING: 09/03/01 EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 03/09/2001

FOR APPLICANT: Mr M J Clardige instructed by Peter Erman appeared for the applicant. LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: FOR RESPONDENT: Mr C Robertson instructed by A O Ellison & Co appeared for the first respondent. Mr A J McCarthy instructed by Herbert Geer & Rundle appeared for the second respondent.

JUDGMENT: 1. This is a claim for industrial deafness. I understand from what I have been told by the parties from the Bar table that the quantum of the deafness claimed is approximately 9.34 per cent which, as I understand it, amounts to the princely sum of $6,006. 2. The second respondent applies for an adjournment. The second respondent was handed this morning by applicant's counsel a copy of a report of Dr Stanley Stylis, an otorhinolaryngologist, bearing date 31 March 2000. It is to be noted the report is almost one year old. That report contains the following history: He says that he has used the same industrial strength Electrolux vacuum cleaner since 1991. The motor on this machine was only refurbished a few months ago; before that, it was making such a loud noise that the tenants of the building where he was cleaning complained of the noise. Thus, he was only able to use the vacuum cleaner after hours. In the small rooms this would be extremely noisy. 3. That history indicates that the refurbishment of the machine to make it quieter, which is the inference to be drawn from the history, occurred in late 1999 or early 2000 prior to the deemed date of injury against the second respondent. The second respondent did request some particulars of the applicant's claim. The form of the request however was not specific to a claim for boilermaker's deafness or deafness of the like origin. The relevant request is this: Statement of duties and details of all activities performed by your client whilst in employment with the second respondent. The replied delivered on 8 March 2001, that is yesterday, was this: