SRA v Akhnoukh [2000] NSWCA 321

New South Wales Court of Appeal

CITATION : SRA v Akhnoukh [2000] NSWCA 321 revised - 13/11/2000 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40095/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 10 April 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 10 November 2000

PARTIES : State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Adel Roushdy Akhnoukh JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 1; Meagher JA at 9; Beazley JA at 17

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Compensation Court LOWER COURT 20830/97 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Maguire CCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

COUNSEL : Appellant: P. Steinberg Respondent: J. Hislop QC/T. McKenzie SOLICITORS : Appellant: W R Harvey & Associates Respondent: McClellands CATCHWORDS : Workers Compensation Act ss.66, 67, 68A - primary and additional injury sustained between 1981 and 1997 - LEGISLATION CITED : Workers Compensation Act, 1987 ss 16, 66, 67 and 68A DECISION : 1. Appeal dismissed with costs.

- 5 - - 5 - THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40095/99

MASON P MEAGHER JA BEAZLEY JA

Friday, 10 November 2000 STATE RAIL AUTHORITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v ADEL ROUSHDY AKHNOUKH FACTS The respondent employee was "medically retired" in 1997 due to degenerative changes flowing from injuries sustained in the workplace between 1978 and 1997. An award was made under ss.66 and 67 of the Workers Compensation Act on the basis of an 18% permanent impairment of the workers back and 13.5% loss of the use of the respondent's left leg, each reduced under s.68A; and a sum of $9,000 was ordered for pain and suffering under s.67. The appellant employer disputes the finding of further "injury" within the terms of the Workers Compensation Act and whether as a question of fact such alleged injury took place after commencement of the provisions upon which the respondent relies. HELD 1. The evidence of the medical practitioners was not taken up in oral evidence and not subject to cross-examination; the appellant cannot complain having foregone its opportunity to cross-examine the documents. ORDERS 1. Appeal dismissed with costs.