Barkla v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd [No 2] - [2012] WADC 78

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: BARKLA -v- G4S CUSTODIAL SERVICES [No 2] [2012] WADC 78

CORAM: COMMISSIONER GETHING

HEARD: 21 MAY 2012

DELIVERED : 6 JUNE 2012

FILE NO/S: APP 6 of 2012

BETWEEN: GEOFF BARKLA
Appellant
AND
G4S CUSTODIAL SERVICES
Respondent

Catchwords:

WorkCover appeal

Legislation:

Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)
Workers Compensation and Injury Management Regulations 1982 (WA)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Mr M J Civitella

Solicitors:

Appellant: Not applicable
Respondent: CCS Insurance Law

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

Attorney-General (WA) v Schoombee [2012] WASCA 29
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond [1990] HCA 33; (1990) 170 CLR 321
Barkla v G4S Custodial Services [2012] WADC 67
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
Boston Clothing Co Pty Ltd v Margaronis (1992) 27 NSWLR 580
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118
Glennan v Commissioner of Taxation [2003] HCA 31; (2003) 77 ALJR 1195
House v R [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499
McGowan v Castrum Pty Ltd [2005] WASCA 198
Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board [2007] WASCA 97
Sinclair v Bickford WA C5-2011, 11 March 2011, unreported, Commissioner McCann
Sotico Pty Ltd v Wilson [2007] WASCA 112

COMMISSIONER GETHING: By appeal notice dated 25 January 2012, the appellant commenced an appeal from a decision of Registrar Melville (arbitrator) on 20 January 2012. In the decision under appeal, the arbitrator refused what was in effect a summary judgment application by the appellant seeking an entitlement to weekly payments pursuant to Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WCIMA) s 57A(5) as a result of the respondent's failure to comply with the notification provisions in WCIMA s 57A(3). The appellant contends that the arbitrator erred in law, failed to address the appellant's submissions and failed to address the WICMA and Workers Compensation and Injury Management Regulations 1982 (WA) (WCIMR).
On 28 February 2012, the respondent lodged a notice of respondent's intention in which it stated that it would argue that the arbitrator's decision should be upheld on the grounds relied by the arbitrator.
On 13 March 2012, a registrar directed that the appeal and the issue of leave to appeal be listed before a judge for hearing.
On 16 April 2012, the appellant filed an application in the appeal seeking orders that the following people give evidence at the hearing of the appeal: Robb Moffat, Elisha Alker, Jaqui Clark, Joe Isherwood, Mr York, Ross Paprone and Paul Brooks. The first three of these people are employees of Allianz. Allianz is the respondent's insurer. The remaining four people are employees of WorkCover Western Australia. I heard that application on 1 May 2012 and dismissed it. My reasons are reported as Barkla v G4S Custodial Services [2012] WADC 67. The appeal thus proceeded on…

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 [No 2] 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: [2012] WADC 78
Decision Date: 6 JUNE 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Barkla v G4S Custodial Services Pty Ltd [No 2], the applicant, Barkla, sought to appeal a decision by the respondent, WorkCover Authority of New South Wales, to overturn a determination of liability. The applicant argued that he suffered from a psychiatric injury resulting from his employment as a Correctional Officer for the respondent. The dispute was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's psychiatric injury was sustained in the course of his employment and whether the respondent was liable for the injury under the Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW). The court also needed to determine whether the applicant's claim was time-barred.

The court found that the applicant had failed to establish that his psychiatric injury was sustained in the course of his employment, as required by the Workers Compensation Act. The court held that the applicant's psychiatric injury was not a result of a work-related incident or series of incidents but rather stemmed from a pre-existing vulnerability to stress. The court also found that the applicant's claim was time-barred, as he had not lodged his claim within the statutory time limit. The court held that the applicant's claim was not compensable as it was not made within the relevant time frame. The court dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the original decision of the respondent.

Orders