Ashley v Ashmore Constructions Pty Ltd

The case of Ashley v Ashmore Constructions Pty Ltd involves a dispute between the worker, who had sought compensation for injuries allegedly sustained during employment, and the employer, who disputes the claims. The dispute was initially arbitrated, and now the worker seeks to introduce new evidence in the form of a medical report from Dr Richard Haber, which was not presented at the arbitration. The matter was heard by the Industrial Commission of Queensland.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether leave should be granted to introduce the new evidence, specifically the report of Dr Richard Haber dated 8 February 2006. The worker argued that Dr Haber was not known to them until after the arbitration date, and thus the opportunity to consult him arose post-arbitration. The employer opposed the introduction of this new evidence, arguing that it was inconsistent with the findings made by the Arbitrator and lacked substantive value. The court had to determine whether the new evidence met the criteria for admission under Practice Direction Number 6, which requires that the new evidence could not reasonably have been obtained prior to the arbitration and that its exclusion would cause substantial injustice.

The Industrial Commission found that the new evidence should not be admitted. The court was not convinced of the probative value of Dr Haber’s report due to the inconsistency in the history provided by the worker and the lack of competence of Dr Haber in toxicology. The court also noted that the opinion of another physician could have been obtained prior to the arbitration. Consequently, the court refused to grant leave for the new evidence to be introduced, considering it did not meet the necessary criteria for admission under the practice direction.