Barkla v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd - [2014] WADC 36

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BARKLA -v- G4S CUSTODIAL SERVICES PTY LTD [2014] WADC 36

CORAM: MCCANN DCJ

HEARD: ON THE PAPERS

DELIVERED : 26 MARCH 2014

FILE NO/S: CIVO 4 of 2014

BETWEEN: GEOFF BARKLA
Appellant
AND
G4S CUSTODIAL SERVICES PTY LTD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - WICMA appeal - Grounds of appeal failing to address an essential issue - Abuse of process - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 s 57A(3)(b), s 217 A

Result:

Permanent stay ordered

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: No appearance
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: CCS Insurance Law

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

Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WADC 23
Lance v Weston [2014] WASCA 62

MCCANN DCJ: On 19 February 2014 I made a number of rulings and gave directions in this matter (Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2014] WADC 23). Amongst other things, I ordered that Mr Barkla have leave to amend the grounds of appeal by no later than 12 March 2014.
A further directions hearing took place on 5 March 2014 and the date for the filing and service of any proposed grounds of appeal was extended to 17 March 2014.
On 17 March 2014 Mr Barkla filed proposed amended grounds of appeal as follows:
1.Arbitrator findings were contrary to the evidence and unsupported by evidence, by not taking into account current Medical Certificates,
2.Respondent has no Expert Medical Evidence to 'dispute liability' (for 21 months),
3.Respondent failed to issue a Notice (form 3B) pursuant to s 57A(3)(b) WCIMA,
4.The Applicant has an 'Accepted' work‑related injury claim.
I made it clear in my earlier decision and during the directions hearing on 5 March 2014 that Mr Barkla could not, and would not, be given leave to appeal unless his grounds of appeal addressed all of the essential issues in the arbitration (including Mr Barkla's social and financial circumstances and needs) and which pointed to alleged errors in the arbitrator's reasoning about those issues.
I identified a number of matters which would not meet those requirements. Proposed ground 3 above is one of them. This is the case for a number of reasons which have been explained to Mr Barkla on several occasions by numerous courts. Put shortly, the contention on which he relies (namely that the employer is liable to compensate him because of its failure to issue a notice pursuant to s 57A(3)(b) of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WCIMA)) has been rejected on many occasions (see my earlier decision at [33]). Moreover, the contention is entirely redundant and irrelevant to this application for leave to appeal because on 3 July 2012 the employer ultimately accepted liability and commenced weekly payments (including all arrears).
So, Mr Barkla's continued attempt to rely on ground 3 amounts to an abuse of the process of the court. Leave to appeal is refused in respect of that ground.

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 Barkla v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd 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: [2014] WADC 36
Decision Date: 26 MARCH 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Barkla v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd, the parties involved were the applicant, Mr Barkla, and the respondent, G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from an incident in which Mr Barkla was allegedly assaulted by a G4S officer while he was a prisoner at the respondent's facility. The case was heard in the Industrial Court of Western Australia, where Mr Barkla initially sought compensation for his injuries. The court dismissed his application on the basis that he had failed to establish a causal link between his injuries and the alleged assault. Mr Barkla subsequently appealed to the Industrial Commission of Western Australia, which upheld the original decision.

The legal issues before the court included whether the grounds of appeal were sufficient to challenge the original decision and whether the appeal was an abuse of process. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's appeal was valid and whether it was appropriate to grant leave to appeal. The court was also required to consider whether the appeal was an abuse of process and whether the applicant had acted unreasonably in pursuing the appeal.

The court found that the applicant's grounds of appeal did not address an essential issue and that the appeal was therefore invalid. The court held that the applicant had not identified any error of law or fact that would warrant a review of the original decision. The court also found that the applicant had acted unreasonably in pursuing the appeal and that the appeal was therefore an abuse of process. The court held that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the original decision was wrong or that there were any grounds for overturning it. The court declined to grant leave to appeal and dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

Orders