Aziz v Tempo Services Ltd

In the case of Aziz v Tempo Services Ltd, the appellant was seeking workers' compensation for injuries sustained in an alleged workplace assault. The dispute was reviewed by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, with the Commissioner initially finding that the arbitrator had erred in refusing to admit evidence of a contemporaneous note of the assault. However, the Commissioner declined to consider this evidence in the review of the evidence and upheld the arbitrator's findings. The appellant then appealed to the Full Court, challenging the Commissioner's decision not to consider the excluded evidence.

The central legal issue was whether the Commissioner erred in law by not considering the excluded evidence when reviewing the arbitrator's findings. The appellant argued that the Commissioner should have regarded the excluded evidence as it was relevant to the key issue of whether an assault occurred. The respondent contended that the Commissioner was correct not to consider the excluded evidence because it was not part of the record before the arbitrator and therefore not available for review.

The Full Court found that the Commissioner did not err in law by not considering the excluded evidence. The Court held that the Commissioner was correct to limit the review of the arbitrator's findings to the evidence that was before the arbitrator. The Court emphasised that the Commissioner's role was to review the arbitrator's decision based on the evidence that was available to them, not to conduct a de novo review of the case. The Court also noted that the excluded evidence was not independently verifiable and its probative value was minimal.

The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Commissioner was upheld. The Full Court found that the Commissioner did not err in law by not considering the excluded evidence and that the Commissioner's review of the arbitrator's findings was proper. The Court did not make any orders regarding the workers' compensation claim itself, as the issue of whether an assault occurred was not before the Court.