Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd - [2018] WADC 109

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   ARMET -v- CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD [2018] WADC 109
CORAM:   PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MELVILLE
HEARD:   8 MAY 2018
DELIVERED          :   31 AUGUST 2018
FILE NO/S:   APP 4 of 2018
BETWEEN:   STEPHANE ARMET
Appellant
AND
CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD
Respondent

FILE NO/S: APP 5 of 2018
BETWEEN: STEPHANE ARMET
Appellant
AND
CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Application to strike out grounds of appeal - Question of law - Error of law - No reasonable prospect of success

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act, s 247

Result:

APP 4 of 2018 be struck out
APP 5 of 2018, grounds 1 to 6 be struck out

Representation:

APP 4 of 2018

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Ms S F Wise

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	SRB Legal

APP 5 of 2018

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	Ms S F Wise

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	Not applicable
Respondent	:	SRB Legal

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

Australian Gas Light Co v Valuer‑General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126, 138; (1940) 57 WN (NSW) 53
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 149
Beer v Duracraft Pty Ltd [2004] WASCA 192
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Treby [2017] WADC 6
Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller [2018] WASCA 55
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Gipp v The Queen [1998] HCA 21
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Hawker Pacific Pty Ltd v Lang [2015] WASCA 256
Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1
Marshall v Lockyer [2006] WASCA 58
Napier v BHP Billiton (Worsley Alumina) Pty Ltd [2015] WASCA 230
Samuels v The State of Western Australia [2005] WASCA 193
Walsh v Fortescue Metals Group Ltd [2016] WADC 140

PRINCIPAL REGISTRAR MELVILLE:

On 10 January 2018 Mr Armet filed these two appeal notices in respect of the decisions of an Arbitrator of the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service (WCAS) in application A34042 and application A36114. The questions of law and the grounds of the appeal that are said to give rise to the two appeals are found as attachments to each of the appeal notices.
The right of appeal is conferred by s 247 of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (the Act) which enables a party to appeal to the District Court with the leave of the District Court. Section 247 of the Act is as follows:
(1)If written reasons for an arbitrator's decision under Part XI in respect of a dispute are given to a party to the dispute (whether as required by section 213(3) or otherwise), the party may, with the leave of the District Court, appeal to the District Court against the decision.
(2)Subject to subsection (3), the District Court is not to grant leave to appeal unless —
(a)in the case of an appeal in which an amount of compensation is at issue…

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: [2018] WADC 109
Decision Date: 31 AUGUST 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd involved an application to strike out the grounds of appeal. The applicant, Armet, sought to appeal a decision made by the Full Court of the Federal Court concerning a copyright dispute. The respondent, CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd, opposed the application, arguing that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. The court was required to determine whether the grounds of appeal contained a question of law and whether there was an error of law apparent on the face of the record that would render the appeal futile.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the grounds of appeal presented a question of law and whether there was a clear error of law that would render the appeal without merit. The court had to examine the grounds of appeal to determine if they identified a legal issue that was subject to judicial review and if there was a clear error of law on the face of the record. The court also needed to assess whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success, considering the likelihood of the appeal being allowed.

The court found that the grounds of appeal did not contain a question of law that was arguable on its face. The court held that the grounds did not clearly demonstrate an error of law, and there was no reasonable prospect of success for the appeal. The court concluded that the appeal was likely to be dismissed, and therefore, the application to strike out the grounds of appeal was successful. The court dismissed the appeal and ordered that the costs of the application be paid by the applicant.

Orders