Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd

The appellant, Atanasoska, sought a review of an arbitrator's decision dismissing her application for a workers compensation assessment of her relevant degree of disability. The appellant's husband also sought a review of the same arbitrator's decision, but subsequently abandoned his appeal. The appellant argued that the arbitrator erred in finding that she and her husband were not credible witnesses, resulting in the factual foundation in the medical reports being flawed. The appellant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court had to determine whether the appeal from the Arbitrator involved any question of law and whether the appeal from the Commissioner was 'on' a question of law. The court held that the appeal from the Arbitrator did not involve any question of law and that the appeal from the Commissioner was not 'on' a question of law. The court found that the appellant's argument that the Arbitrator erred in finding that she and her husband were not credible witnesses was not a question of law but rather a question of fact, which the Arbitrator was entitled to determine. The court also held that the appeal from the Commissioner was not 'on' a question of law, as the Commissioner's decision was not based on a question of law but rather on a question of fact.

The court further held that the Arbitrator's decision was not flawed and that the appellant's argument that the factual foundation in the medical reports was flawed was not supported by the evidence. The court found that the Arbitrator was entitled to make findings of fact and that the appellant's argument that the Arbitrator erred in finding that she and her husband were not credible witnesses was not a question of law but rather a question of fact. The court also held that the Arbitrator's decision to dismiss the appellant's application for a workers compensation assessment of her relevant degree of disability was not flawed.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The court held that the appeal from the Arbitrator did not involve any question of law and that the appeal from the Commissioner was not 'on' a question of law. The court found that the Arbitrator's decision was not flawed and that the appellant's argument that the factual foundation in the medical reports was flawed was not supported by the evidence. The court held that the Arbitrator was entitled to make findings of fact and that the appellant's argument that the Arbitrator erred in finding that she and her husband were not credible witnesses was not a question of law but rather a question of fact.