The issues raised in the appeal were not compelling enough to justify prolonging the dispute: court
The High Court declined an employer's request for special leave to appeal a workplace injury compensation case under the Accident Compensation Act 2001, concluding a 16-year legal dispute over chemical exposure.
The case concerned a former employee of Alliance Group Ltd. who worked as a shepherd at a processing plant and was exposed to glutaraldehyde, a chemical commonly used in stock wash. In 2008, the employee experienced symptoms including chest pain, respiratory issues, and headaches, which they attributed to chemical exposure at work. He submitted a claim for personal injury compensation in 2008.
The employer, accredited under the act to manage workplace injury claims, initially declined the claim in 2009, asserting insufficient evidence to link the symptoms to a physical injury. Following multiple reviews and appeals, the District Court ultimately ruled in 2023 that the injury met the statutory criteria for compensation. The employer sought leave to challenge this finding.
The appeal focused on two main legal questions. First, whether evidence from a neuropsychiatrist was admissible and appropriately relied upon, given the lack of specific toxicological expertise. Second, whether the court correctly applied the legal test for determining a significantly greater risk of injury due to workplace conditions compared to non-work environments.
The employee’s medical expert concluded that the injury was consistent with neurotoxic syndrome caused by exposure to glutaraldehyde. Conversely, the employer’s expert, an occupational physician, argued that exposure levels were too low to pose a significant risk and contended that the employee’s symptoms could not be definitively linked to the workplace.
The High Court acknowledged that the employer raised two arguable legal questions: the admissibility of the neuropsychiatrist’s evidence and whether the District Court adequately explained its preference for that evidence over conflicting medical opinions. However, the court declined to grant leave, emphasising the importance of finality in litigation, particularly in a case that had already spanned 16 years.
The court noted that while the questions raised issues of legal principle, they were not compelling enough to justify prolonging the dispute. The significant delays in resolving the claim weighed heavily against granting leave, with the court concluding that the overall interests of justice required an end to the litigation.