Barkla v WorkCover Western Australia - [2014] WASCA 40

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: BARKLA -v- WORKCOVER WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2014] WASCA 40

CORAM: PULLIN JA
NEWNES JA

HEARD: 17 DECEMBER 2013

DELIVERED : 17 DECEMBER 2013

PUBLISHED : 21 FEBRUARY 2014

FILE NO/S: CACV 114 of 2013

BETWEEN: GEOFF BARKLA
Appellant
AND
WORKCOVER WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :BOWDEN DCJ
File No  :CIVO 183 of 2013

Catchwords:

Appeal - Practice and procedure - Whether appeal has any reasonable prospect of succeeding - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 22 r 7
Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 42(g)(i)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

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

Barkla v Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd [2013] WASCA 240
Barkla v Allianz Insurance [2013] WASCA 21

REASONS OF THE COURT: The appellant appealed against an order of Bowden DCJ in the District Court. The order refused the appellant leave to commence an appeal against a WorkCover WA arbitrator's decision refusing to make an order that a statement of agreed facts be filed by the parties.
This appeal was listed for the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(i) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) on the basis that none of the grounds of appeal had any reasonable prospect of succeeding. After hearing the submissions from the appellant, the court decided that the appeal should be dismissed with reasons to follow. These are the reasons of the court.
It is necessary to begin by relating the history of some earlier litigation. On 13 October 2010, the appellant was working as a custodial services supervisor at the Geraldton court. His employer was G4S Custodial Services. He claimed that he had been injured in the course of his employment and on 5 November 2010 he lodged a claim for workers' compensation.
On 5 January 2012, the appellant sought orders to the effect that he had an entitlement to weekly payments pursuant to the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (WCIMA), s 57A(5), as a result of Allianz Australia Insurance Ltd's (Allianz) (the employer's insurer's) failure to comply with the notification provisions in the WCIMA, s 57A(3). The appellant's contention was that an employer who had given notice under s 57A(3)(c) was also obliged to give notice under s 57A(3)(b) if it wished to dispute liability. The appellant contended the failure to do so triggered a liability to pay weekly payments. An arbitrator appointed under the WCIMA disagreed with the appellant's contention and dismissed the appellant's application.
The appellant appealed to the District Court against the arbitrator's decision. Commissioner Gething in the District Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 6 June 2012. The appellant appealed to this court out of…

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.

Continue reading Barkla v WorkCover Western Australia

Details

AGLC: Barkla v WorkCover Western Australia [2014] WASCA 40
Case: [2014] WASCA 40
Decision Date: 21 FEBRUARY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case, Barkla, was seeking to appeal a decision made by WorkCover Western Australia. The appeal was centred around the respondent's determination that Barkla's medical condition was not related to his employment, thereby denying his claim for workers' compensation. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which had to decide whether the appeal had any reasonable prospect of success based on the facts presented.

The primary legal issue that the court had to determine was whether the appeal had any reasonable prospect of succeeding. This involved assessing the merits of the appeal based on the unique circumstances and evidence presented in the case. The court needed to consider whether there were any significant errors in the primary decision or if new evidence had emerged that could potentially alter the outcome.

In evaluating the appeal, the court found that it did not have a reasonable prospect of succeeding. The appeal hinged on whether the primary decision was flawed or if there was new evidence that could change the outcome. However, the court concluded that the primary decision was sound, and there was no new evidence that would lead to a different conclusion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal. The decision confirmed the original determination by WorkCover Western Australia, which upheld the denial of Barkla's workers' compensation claim. The dismissal of the appeal reinforced the primary decision, and no further action was required by the court.

Orders