LAW112 Assessment 4

.docx

School

Charles Sturt University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

112

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CoachArt6885

Author: Claire Willoughby Date: 26 th of January, 2023 Re. You are a Solicitor working in a law firm. A Senior Partner has asked you to prepare a legal research memorandum involving statutory interpretation. The subject is the High Court case of Deal v Father Pius Kodakkathanath [2016] HCA 31 which involved the interpretation of the phrase ‘associated with’ a ‘hazardous manual handling task’ in regulation 3.1.2 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic). Your Senior Partner is interested in the case history of this decision and asks you to look at its treatment in the High Court. Locate the High Court judgement then draft a memorandum outlining the key aspects of statutory interpretation that the case involved. In your memorandum, answer the following: 1. Give a brief executive summary which introduces the case and the key points you will address in your memorandum (200 words) 2. Outline the relevant legal issue(s) in dispute (250 words maximum); 3. Categorise and critically analyse the interpretive criteria applied by the majority (1,200 words); 4. In your own words, explain the conclusion reached by the High Court (150 words); 5. Critically analyse whether you agree/disagree with the decision of the High Court (200 words). Executive Summary Deal v Father Pius Kodakkathanath [2016] HCA 31 was an Australian High Court case that dealt with the interpretation of the phrase ‘associated with’ a ‘hazardous manual handling task’ in regulation 3.1.2 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic). The appellant, ‘Ms Kathryn Deal’ brought proceedings against ‘Father Pius Kodakkathanath’ as her employer. She alleged that a knee injury sustained whilst carrying out work duties was the result of negligence and a breach of statutory duty on her employers’ behalf. It was determined in the first instance that the circumstances that the plaintiff’s injury occurred in was not related to the Acts regulations, and therefore returned a verdict in favour of the defendant. Ms Deal appealed this decision, firstly to the Court of Appeal of Victoria, before applying for special leave to the High Court of Australia being dissatisfied with her initial appeal results. The interpretation and application of the key phrases from the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic) to the circumstances of the appellants injury were critical for the jury to best determine a just outcome for the case. Relevant Legal Issue(s) In 2016, Ms Kathryn Deal applied and gained special leave to the Australian High Court in a civil case that brought a case of alleged negligence and a breach of statutory duty against her employer, Father Pius Kodakkathanath. The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Victorian County Court, arguing that her employers had failed to, ‘so far as reasonably

practicable,’ identify and limit tasks that involved hazardous manual handling and as a result lead to a musculoskeletal injury. The primary judge determined that the plaintiff was not involved in hazardous manual handling, and consequently determined that the defendant held no liability in the incident. This was further appealed to the Court of Appeal where the majority found that whilst the appellant was involved in hazardous manual handling, there was not a sufficient connection between that and the type of injury, establishing that it was not reasonably practicable for an employer to consider the task of removing classroom displays as one that involved hazardous manual handling resulting in a musculoskeletal injury. Through a grant of special leave, this was further appealed to the High Court where the following was established: 1. The Court of Appeal misconstrued the phrase “associated with a hazardous manual handling task” as per regulation 3.1.2. 2. Through this, the regulation extends to the risk of a musculoskeletal disorder, caused, in whole or part, by a task meeting the description pf hazardous manual handling. 3. Through this interpretation, it was established that a jury could conclude the risk of the appellant falling and becoming injured, proving the respondent’s responsibility to identify the task as a risk to be either controlled or eliminated in the workplace. The main legal issue in dispute was the interpretation of the phrase ‘associated with’ a ‘hazardous manual handling task’ in regulation with 3.1.2 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic). Interpretive Criteria applied by the majority ‘Central interpretive criteria’ - Intrinsic guides of the provision and Act concerned: The majority on the Deal v Father Pius Kodakkathanath case relied heavily on the intrinsic guides of the provision and act concerned. The phrase “associated with” was interpreted in light of its context within the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic). The majority found that the phrase was intended to capture a wide range of tasks beyond those that are performed by the person handling the hazard. - Extrinsic materials: The majority considered extrinsic materials in interpreting the phrase “associated with” a “hazardous manual handling task” in regulation 3.1.2 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic). The specific extrinsic materials considered in this case included the purpose of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic) and the policy behind the regulation. The Court found that the regulation was designed to promote workplace health and safety and that the phrase “associated with” was intended to capture a wide range of activities that could pose a risk of harm to workers. In considering this, the extrinsic materials aided the Court in understanding the context, purpose, and policy behind the regulation, which informed its interpretation of the phrase “associated with.” The majority used the information provided by these extrinsic materials to reach a decision that gave effect to the regulation’s purpose of promoting workplace health and safety. - The relevant Commonwealth statutory interpretation legislation: The majority did not specifically address the relevant Commonwealth statutory interpretation

legislation in this case. Whilst the case does not specify why this occurred, it is possible that the majority found that the other aspects of the interpretive criteria, such as the intrinsic guides of the provision and act concerned and extrinsic materials, as well as the interpretative principles and presumptions developed by the courts, were sufficient in reaching their decision. It is also possible that the Justices of the High Court determined that the relevant Commonwealth statutory interpretative legislation may not have been applicable or relevant to the specific provision being interpreted in the case. - Interpretative principles and presumptions developed by courts: The majority applied interpretative principles and presumptions developed by the courts when interpreting the phrase “associated with” a “hazardous manual handling task” in regulation 3.1.2 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2007 (Vic). The interpretative principles and presumptions used by the Court in this case included: 1. Purposive Approach: The Court applied a purposive approach, which focused on the purpose and policy of the regulation being interpreted. The Court found that the regulation was designed to promote workplace health and safety, and that the regulation was designed to promote workplace health and safety, and that the phrase “associated with” was intended to capture a wider range of activities that could pose a risk of harm to workers. 2. The Golden Rule: The Court applied the golden rule of statutory interpretation, which provides that if the wording of a provision is clear and unambiguous, the court must give effect to its plain meaning. The Court found that the phrase “associated with” was unambiguous and gave effect to its plain meaning. 3. The Mischief Rule: The Court also applied the mischief rule of statutory interpretation, which requires the court to determine what problem or mischief the legislation was designed to address, and to interpret the provision in a way that gives effect to its purpose. The Court found that the purpose of the regulation was to promote workplace health and safety, and that the phrase “associated with” was intended to capture a wider range of activities that could pose a risk of harm to workers. These interpretive principles and presumptions helped the Court reach its decision by providing guidance on how to interpret the phrase “associated with” in the regulation. The majority used these principles to interpret the provision in a way that gave effect to its purpose of promoting workplace health and safety. - Pre-existing, related or similar statues and common law doctrines: The majority did not refer to any pre-existing, related or similar statutes or common law doctrines in this case. - Precedent in comparable cases: The majority did not specifically address any precedents in comparable cases in this case. Whilst it is possible that the majority found sufficient information to rely upon in passing down their decision from other aspects of the central interpretative criteria, it is more than likely that there was no pre-existing, related or similar statues and common law doctrines or precedents in comparable cases that were applicable or relevant to the specific provision being interpreted in the case, given the circumstances of the case being of an appeal

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help