Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd - [2025] WADC 50

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   ARMET -v- CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD [2025] WADC 50
CORAM:   LONSDALE DCJ
HEARD:   1 OCTOBER & 15 NOVEMBER 2024
DELIVERED          :   22 AUGUST 2025
FILE NO/S:   APP 33 of 2024
BETWEEN:   STEPHANE ARMET
Appellant
AND
CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WORKERS COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE
Coram:   ARBITRATOR WALLBRIDGE
File Number            :   A119319

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Appeal under s 391 of the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 (WA) 'total liability of employer' - 'Permanent total incapacity for work' - Failure to give adequate reasons - Bias - Lack of procedural unfairness - Denial of natural justice

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 3(d), s 5A(1A), s 188, s 217, s 247, Sch I cl 11(2)

Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 (WA), s 391

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Mr T H Offer and Ms M L Radford

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	McCabes

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

Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd (Unreported, Workers Compensation Arbitration Service, A119319 12 April 2024)
Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2018] WADC 109
Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2020] WADC 142
Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2022] WADC 5
Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2022] WASCA 63
Armet v Stephen Browne [2024] WASCA 44
Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266
F Hoffmann-La Roche & Co AG v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [1975] AC 295
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Joyce v Anderson [2020] WASCA 48
Kipoi Holdings Mauritius Ltd v Kirman [No 4] [2024] WASCA 145
Lockwood-Hall v BHP Billiton Nickel West Pty Ltd (Unreported, C 5/12 (McCann PP) 18 May 2012)
Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Workers' Compensation) Ltd v Cini (Unreported, CM 57/96 (Heath SA) 25 September 1996)
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97; (2007) 33 WAR 361
Robertson v Kraft Foods Ltd (Unreported, CM 64/99 (Heath SA) 28 July 1999)
Tabloid Pty Ltd v Pringle [2024] WASCA 152
Waddington v Silver Chain Nursing Association (1998) 20 WAR 269
Zamora v OCS Services Pty Ltd [2025] WASCA 117

LONSDALE DCJ:

Introduction and overview

On 18 March 2015 the appellant suffered an injury to his lumbar spine whilst in the employ of the respondent. On 30 July 2025 the appellant lodged an application for workers' compensation pursuant to the provisions of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (the 1981 Act).
On 4 September 2015 the appellant suffered an aggravation of the back injury following which the respondent accepted liability for the aggravation of the injury. Weekly payments of compensation commenced. The…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WADC 50
Decision Date: 22 AUGUST 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal before the court was brought by Armet, the appellant, against CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd, the respondent, following a decision by an arbitrator concerning workers' compensation. The central issue was whether the appellant was entitled to compensation for a permanent total incapacity for work. The appeal was lodged under section 391 of the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 (WA), which allows for an appeal from an arbitrator's decision to the District Court with the leave of the Court. The court was required to determine whether the arbitrator's decision contained sufficient reasons to justify the outcome, and whether there were any errors of law that materially affected the decision.

The court examined whether the arbitrator had provided adequate reasons for the decision, as required by law. It was noted that the reasons given by the arbitrator were insufficient and did not adequately explain the basis for the decision, which constituted a failure to give adequate reasons and a breach of natural justice. The court held that the lack of adequate reasons for the decision was a material error of law, as it did not allow for proper review or understanding of the decision-making process. Furthermore, the court found that the decision was also affected by a lack of procedural fairness, as the appellant was not given a fair opportunity to respond to the issues raised.

The court concluded that the appeal should be allowed due to the material errors of law identified in the arbitrator's decision. The decision of the arbitrator was quashed, and the matter was remitted back to the arbitrator for reconsideration. The court emphasised the importance of providing adequate reasons for decisions in workers' compensation matters to ensure transparency and fairness in the decision-making process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The present appeal was lodged after the proclamation of the Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 2023 (WA) (the 2023 Act). Section 391 of that Act provides for leave to appeal from a decision of an arbitrator to this court. Section 391 of the 2023 Act is essentially in the same terms as s 247 of the 1981 Act. Section 391 provides: 391.Appeal against arbitrator's decision(1)If written reasons for an arbitrator's decision under this Act in respect of a dispute are given to a party to the dispute, the party may, with the leave of the District Court, appeal to the District Court against the decision.(2)The District Court must not grant leave to appeal unless a question of law is involved.(3)In addition to the requirement that a question of law is involved, the District Court must not grant leave to appeal when an amount of compensation is at issue unless -(a)the amount at issue in the appeal is -(i)at least $5 000 (or a greater amount, if any, prescribed by the regulations); and(ii)at least 20% of the amount awarded in the decision appealed against; or(b)the District Court is of the opinion that the matter is of such importance that, in the public interest, an appeal should lie.(4)An application for leave to appeal cannot be made later than 28 days after the day on which the written reasons for the decision appealed against were given to the party making the application.(5)An appeal under this section is by way of review of the decision appealed against and, except as provided by this Part, must be conducted in accordance with the rules of court of the District Court.(6)Evidence that is fresh evidence or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence received in relation to the decision appealed against cannot be given on an appeal to the District Court except with the leave of the District Court.(7)On hearing an appeal made under this section, the District Court may -(a)affirm, amend or quash the decision appealed against, or substitute, or make in addition, any decision that should have been made in the first instance; and(b)subject to the limitations on an award of costs imposed by section 400, make any further or other decision, as to costs or otherwise, as the District Court thinks fit. As for an appeal under s 247 of the 1981 Act, I may only grant leave to appeal under s 391 of the 2023 Act if the appellant establishes that the arbitrator has made an error of law. See Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266 [53] - [54]; BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250 [3]. Insofar as an error of law is identified, it must be an error that is material to the decision; it must contribute to the decision and but for the error the decision would or might have been different. See Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [15] (Pullin JA, Buss and Wheeler JJA agreeing). The distinction as to what constitutes an error of fact, and an error of law was discussed in the case of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond:[21] [21] Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (355) - (357) (Mason J).…(4)Review of the Findings of Fact (a)Grounds of Review As I have explained, findings of fact and inferences of fact are not reviewable under the A.D.(J.R.) Act unless jurisdiction is enlivened by the review of a 'decision' or 'conduct'. Findings of fact, including inferences, may be reviewed under the A.D.(J.R.) Act for error of law (s. 5(1)(t)) and on the ground 'that there was no evidence or other material to justify the making of the decision' (s. 5(l)(h)). It is not necessary to consider the content of the ground in s. 5(1)(j), 'that the decision was otherwise contrary to law'. The question whether there is any evidence of a particular fact is a question of law: McPhee v. S. Bennett Ltd.; Australian Gas Light Co. v. Valuer-General. Likewise, the question whether a particular inference can be drawn from facts found or agreed is a question of law: Australian Gas Light; Hope v. Bathurst City Council. This is because, before the inference is drawn, there is the preliminary question whether the evidence reasonably admits of different conclusions: Federal Commissioner of Taxation v. Broken Hill South Ltd. So, in the context of judicial review, it has been accepted that the making of findings and the drawing of inferences in the absence of evidence is an error of law: Sinclair v. Maryborough Mining Warden. But it is said that '[t]here is no error of law simply in making a wrong finding of fact': Waterford v. The Commonwealth, per Brennan J. Similarly, Menzies J. observed in Reg. v. District Court; Ex parte White: Even if the reasoning whereby the Court reached its conclusion of fact were demonstrably unsound, this would not amount to an error of law on the face of the record. To establish some faulty (e.g. illogical) inference of fact would not disclose an error of law.Thus, at common law, according to the Australian authorities, want of logic is not synonymous with error of law. So long as there is some basis for an inference - in other words, the particular inference is reasonably open - even if that inference appears to have been drawn as a result of illogical reasoning, there is no place for judicial review because no error of law has taken place. On the other hand, there are statements in the English cases which support a 'no sufficient evidence' test in the context of judicial review of findings of fact: see, for example, Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison; Ex parte Armah. It remains to be seen whether these statements convey any more than a 'no probative evidence' test. So far no occasion has arisen to determine whether this is the case and, if so, whether the statements are to be seen as expressing what is or should be the law of Australia on the topic. There are also statements in the English cases which suggest that findings and inferences are reviewable for error of law on the ground that they could not be reasonably made on the evidence or reasonably drawn from the primary facts: Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v. Bairstow; Cooper v. Stubbs; British Launderers' Research Association v. Borough of Hendon Rating Authority; Ashbridge Investments Ltd. v. Minister of Housing and Local Government. Further, in Mahon v. Air New Zealand the Judicial Committee stated that natural justice requires that 'the decision to make [a] finding must be based upon some material that tends logically to show the existence of facts consistent with the finding and that the reasoning supportive of the finding, if it be disclosed, is not logically self-contradictory'. These statements may be traced back to the observations of Diplock L.J. in Reg. v. Deputy Industrial Injuries Commissioner; Ex parte Moore; see also Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v. Pochi, per Deane J. (an appeal from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal under the AA.T. Act). The approach adopted in these cases has not so far been accepted by this Court. …(footnotes omitted)

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.