Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Peters & Brownes Group - [2005] WASCA 195

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD -v- PETERS & BROWNES GROUP & ORS [2005] WASCA 195

CORAM: STEYTLER P
WHEELER JA
ROBERTS-SMITH JA

HEARD: 13 JUNE 2005

DELIVERED : 11 OCTOBER 2005

FILE NO/S: FUL 105 of 2004

BETWEEN: ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD
Appellant (Second Respondent)
AND
PETERS & BROWNES GROUP
First Respondent (Applicant)
GIO GENERAL INSURANCE
Second Respondent (First Respondent)
ZURICH AUSTRALIAN INSURANCE LTD
Third Respondent (Third Respondent)

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  COMPENSATION MAGISTRATE'S COURT
Coram  :MR I G BROWN CM
File No  :CM 1 of 2004

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) s 74 - Disputes between insurers

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 73, 74

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA), s 73, s 74

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: A

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant (Second Respondent)             :        Ms F C E Davis
First Respondent (Applicant)             :        No appearance
Second Respondent (First Respondent)    :        Mr G R Hancy
Third Respondent (Third Respondent)     :        Mr L E James

Solicitors:

Appellant (Second Respondent)         :        Phillips Fox
First Respondent (Applicant)             :        Pynt & Partners
Second Respondent (First Respondent)    :        D G Price & Co
Third Respondent (Third Respondent)     :        Kott Gunning

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Albion Insurance Co Ltd v GIO (New South Wales) (1969) 121 CLR 342
Beer v Duracraft Pty Ltd [2004] WASCA 192
Canale v Commissioner of Main Roads (1982) 1 WCR (WA) 163
F & T Grassi Pty Ltd v Ellendale Estate Pty Ltd [1985] WAR 294
SGIO Insurance Ltd v Wesfarmers Insurance Ltd, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 950091; 3 March 1995

Case(s) also cited:

Wesfarmers Federation Insurance Ltd v State Government Insurance Commission, unreported; FCt SCt of WA; Library No 960286; 24 May 1996

STEYTLER P: I agree with Wheeler JA, for the reasons which she has given, that the appeal should be dismissed.
WHEELER JA:

The appeal

This is an appeal from a decision of a Compensation Magistrate in relation to a dispute between three insurers. The worker concerned had previously brought a successful application against the first respondent ("the employer") for an order for workers' compensation payments. The employer then brought an application against its workers' compensation insurers claiming indemnity. The issue for determination in the proceedings below was which of the employer's insurers was liable to indemnify the employer for the employer's liability to pay workers' compensation payments to the worker.
The appeal centres around two primary issues: the way in which liability is apportioned between insurers pursuant to s 74 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA) ("the Act") (as it was then called); and the extent to which a Review Officer should rely upon and accept expert medical opinion when some of the factual foundation for that opinion is lacking, or is found to be erroneous.

Background to the appeal

In April 1992 the worker commenced…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Peters & Brownes Group

Details

AGLC: Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Peters & Brownes Group [2005] WASCA 195
Case: [2005] WASCA 195
Decision Date: 11 OCTOBER 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd v Peters & Brownes Group, the Federal Court was presented with a dispute between two insurers regarding a workers' compensation claim. Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd, the first respondent, sought to recover amounts paid out to a worker under a compensation scheme, while Peters & Brownes Group, the appellant, contested Allianz's claim. The central issue was whether Allianz had a right to recover the payments made to the worker, as provided under section 74 of the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 (WA).

The court was tasked with interpreting the statutory provisions, particularly section 74, which allows for disputes between insurers to be determined by the court. The legal issues included the interpretation of the term "insurers" in section 74 and whether the payments made by Allianz could be considered a "compensation" payment under the Act. Additionally, the court had to consider the extent of Allianz's rights to recover the payments made to the worker.

The court held that section 74 of the Act was intended to provide a mechanism for resolving disputes between insurers, not just between the insurer and the worker. It was determined that Allianz's payments to the worker constituted compensation under the Act. The court also found that Allianz, as the insurer that made the primary payments, had the right to recover the amounts paid out. The court emphasised the importance of statutory interpretation in the context of workers' compensation law and the need to give effect to the legislative intent behind section 74.

The final orders of the court upheld Allianz's right to recover the payments made to the worker, subject to the terms and conditions set out in the decision. The court's interpretation of section 74 clarified the process for disputes between insurers and reinforced the statutory framework for workers' compensation claims in Western Australia.

Orders