Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd - [2022] WASCA 63

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   ARMET -v- CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD [2022] WASCA 63
CORAM:   MURPHY JA
VAUGHAN JA

HEARD:   27 MAY 2022
DELIVERED          :   15 JUNE 2022
FILE NO/S:   CACV 17 of 2022
BETWEEN:   STEPHANE ARMET
Appellant
AND
CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   LEMONIS DCJ
Citation: ARMET -v- CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD [2022] WADC 5
File Number            :   APP 30 of 2021

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Arbitration - Where a party sought recusal of an arbitrator due to alleged actual or apprehended bias - Unsuccessful appeal to District Court against dismissal of recusal application - No arguable basis upon which it could be found that primary decision was wrong

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 254

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	In person
Respondent	:	McCabes

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

Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2022] WADC 5
Charisteas v Charisteas [2021] HCA 29
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2000] HCA 63; (2000) 205 CLR 337
Engine Protection Equipment Pty Ltd v Miller [2018] WASCA 55
Glew v Frank Jasper Pty Ltd [2010] WASCA 87
Johnson v Johnson [2000] HCA 48; (2000) 201 CLR 488
Lashanky v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [No 3] [2013] WASCA 260
Marks v Coles Supermarkets [2020] WADC 36
Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513
Re Polites; Ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 25; (1991) 173 CLR 78
WKS v The State of Western Australia [No 4] [2020] WASCA 178

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT:

Introduction

This matter came to a hearing on 27 May 2022 to consider the application by the appellant (Mr Armet) for leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is required under s 254 of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (Act). Mr Armet is self-represented.
The appeal is against a decision of Lemonis DCJ in Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd (primary decision).[1] The primary decision was concerned with an appeal by Mr Armet against a decision by an arbitrator in arbitration proceedings under the Act brought by Mr Armet against his former employer, the respondent (CFC). In that arbitration, Mr Armet brought an application for an arbitrator, Mr Nunn, who was case‑managing the arbitration, to recuse himself from further involvement in the arbitration on the basis of actual or apprehended bias. Arbitrator Nunn dismissed the application for recusal and published reasons on 16 April 2021.[2] Mr Armet appealed to the District Court against the dismissal of his recusal application. The appeal was heard by Lemonis DCJ, who dismissed the appeal.
[1] Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd [2022] WADC 5.
[2] Arbitrator's decision A93766 (Arbitrator's Decision).
For…

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: [2022] WASCA 63
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stephane Armet (Mr Armet) sought leave to appeal against the decision of Lemonis DCJ in Armet v CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd. The District Court had dismissed an appeal brought by Mr Armet against the decision of an arbitrator who dismissed Mr Armet's application for recusal. The primary issues for the Court of Appeal were whether Mr Armet's appeal disclosed any arguable basis upon which it could be found that the primary decision was wrong or attended with doubt as to its correctness. The Court of Appeal found that it was not, and dismissed the appeal. The arbitrator had not acted with actual or apprehended bias. The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge's application of the law and his consideration of the appeal. The Court of Appeal also found that Mr Armet's case did not engage with the primary judge's reasoning, and that there was no arguable error shown. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal.

Orders