Barclay Bros Pty Ltd v Liaris, Nicholas - [1981] FCA 155

Re: BARCLAY BROS. PTY. LTD.
And: NICHOLAS LIARIS (1981) 56 FLR 436
No. NTG12 of 1981
Workers' compensation

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Keely(1), Deane(1) and Toohey(1) JJ.

CATCHWORDS

Workers' compensation - appeal by way of rehearing from Workmen's Compensation Tribunal to Supreme Court of the Northern Territory - nature of appeal - all evidence before Tribunal put before Supreme Court by consent - oral evidence called in Supreme Court by workman including recall of witnesses before Tribunal - employer not calling or recalling any witnesses - whether Supreme Court entitled to reverse findings of Tribunal based on Tribunal's view of credibility of witnesses - on appeal employer bound by manner in which case conducted before Supreme Court - Workmen's Compensation Act 1949 (N.T.) s.26

Workers' Compensation - Determination by Workmen's Compensation Tribunal - Appeal to Supreme Court - Nature of proceedings on appeal - Hearing de novo - Employer failed to adduce further evidence - Court set aside Tribunal's finding - Whether court entitled to reverse Tribunal's view of credibility of witnesses - Whether employer bound by conduct of case before court - Workmen's Compensation Act 1949 (N.T.), s. 26.

HEADNOTE

The Workmen's Compensation Tribunal dismissed a claim by the respondent for compensation. On appeal to the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory the court had before it in evidence all the material before the Tribunal and further oral and written evidence presented by the workman (respondent). The employer called no evidence. The court set aside the determination of the Tribunal. The employer appealed to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia.

Held: Per curiam, the appeal should be dismissed because - (1) An appeal to the Supreme Court from a determination of a Workmen's Compensation Tribunal calls for an exercise of original jurisdiction by the court.

Dare v. Dietrich (1979), 37 FLR 175, followed.

Uranerz (Aust.) Pty. Ltd. v. Hale (1980), 54 ALJR 378, distinguished.

(2) The employer is bound, on appeal, by the manner in which his counsel has conducted the proceedings and the employer cannot properly complain that the judge below failed expressly to forewarn him of the possible consequences of the employer's failure to call any evidence.

McCormack v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1979), 143 CLR 284, referred to.

(3) The judge below was required to have regard to the whole of the evidence before him.

(4) In the instant case the principles which the judge below applied in the discharge of his task were correct.

HEARING

Darwin, 1981, July 2; September 25. #DATE 25:9:1981

APPEAL.

Appeal to the Federal Court of Australia from a decision of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory setting aside a determination of the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal.

J. D. Cummins Q.C. and K. Curnow, for the appellant.

J. B. Waters, for the respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

Solicitors for the appellant: Mildren Silvester & Partners.

Solicitors for the respondent: Waters James & O'Neil.

E. F. FROHLICH

ORDER

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 Barclay Bros Pty Ltd v Liaris, Nicholas 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: [1981] FCA 155
Decision Date: 25 SEPTEMBER 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this appeal were Barclay Bros Pty Ltd, the employer, and Nicholas Liaris, the employee. The dispute was about the validity of a workers' compensation claim, specifically regarding the nature and extent of an injury sustained by the employee. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory, which had appellate jurisdiction over decisions of the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the Supreme Court was entitled to reverse the findings of the Workmen's Compensation Tribunal based on its own assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, particularly when the Tribunal's findings were grounded on its view of the credibility of those witnesses. The court also had to consider whether the employer was bound by the manner in which the case was conducted before the Supreme Court, in light of the employer's failure to call or recall any witnesses during the appeal.

The Supreme Court concluded that the appeal was bound by the manner in which the case was conducted before it. As the employer did not call or recall any witnesses, it was precluded from challenging the Tribunal's findings on the credibility of the witnesses. The court held that the employer was bound by the evidence presented by the employee and could not rely on the Tribunal's view of the witnesses' credibility to overturn its findings. The Supreme Court found no basis to reverse the Tribunal's decision, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss the appeal with costs. The court's decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness and the binding nature of evidence presented during the course of legal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal be dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.