Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd & G4S Custodial Services

[2014] WASCA 192

BARKLA -v- ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD & G4S CUSTODIAL SERVICES [2014] WASCA 192

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2014] WASCA 192
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:	CACV:109/2014	Heard:	8 OCTOBER 2014
Coram:	NEWNES JA MURPHY JA	Delivered:	8/10/14
No of pages:	3	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GEOFF BARKLA ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD & G4S CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application to administer interrogatories in an appeal
Legislation:	Nil
Case References:	Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BARKLA -v- ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD & G4S CUSTODIAL SERVICES [2014] WASCA 192 CORAM : NEWNES JA

MURPHY JA

HEARD : 8 OCTOBER 2014 DELIVERED : 8 OCTOBER 2014 FILE NO/S : CACV 109 of 2014 BETWEEN : GEOFF BARKLA

Appellant

AND

ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD & G4S CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Respondents

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : STAUDE DCJ

Citation : BARKLA -v- ALLIANZ AUSTRALIA INSURANCE LTD [2014] WADC 113

File No : APP 54 of 2014

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application to administer interrogatories in an appeal

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person
Respondents : Mr D R Clyne

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person
Respondents : CCS Insurance Law

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

Nil


1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: The appellant has appealed against an order of Staude J in the District Court, dismissing the appellant's application for leave to appeal from a decision of an arbitrator under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA).

2 The appellant has filed an interim application in the appeal seeking orders that three named persons each answer four interrogatories. Two of those to whom the interrogatories are sought to be directed appear to be employees of the first respondent and the other appears to be a solicitor.

3 The application to administer interrogatories is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the appellate process and the function of this court. It proceeds on the false premise that the function of this court is to conduct a fresh factual enquiry into matters said to be relevant to the decision below. That is not the function of this court. The application is entirely misconceived and is dismissed.