Bessell v AQA Oysters Ltd - [2020] TASSC 29

[2020] TASSC 29

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Bessell v AQA Oysters Ltd [2020] TASSC 29

PARTIES:  BESSELL, Shirley-Ann
  v
  AQA Oysters Ltd

FILE NO: 2733/2019
DECISION

APPEALED FROM: B v AQA Oysters Ltd (No 2) [2019] TASWRCT 38

DELIVERED ON:  1 July 2020
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  12 May 2020
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Workers Compensation – Proceedings to obtain compensation – Determination of claims – Procedure – Appeals, judicial review and stated cases – Question of law – Refusal to allow claimant to recall witness before her case was closed – Order for costs made without affording unsuccessful party opportunity to make submissions.

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (Tas), ss 49(1)(a), 63(1).
Medical Board of Australia v Alroe [2016] QCA 120, followed.
Aust Dig Workers Compensation [341]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  S Taglieri SC, J Bloomfield
             Respondent:  M Wilkins
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  Slater and Gordon
             Respondent:  Page Seager

Judgment Number: [2020] TASSC 29
Number of paragraphs: 55

Serial No 29/2020
File No 2733/2019

SHIRLEY-ANN BESSELL v AQA OYSTERS LTD

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

1 July 2020

This is an appeal from a decision of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Tribunal, constituted by its former Chief Commissioner, Mr R Webster. It concerns a claim for compensation by the partner of a worker who became psychotic and committed suicide.
On 23 March 2010 the worker suffered a back injury in the course of his employment by the respondent, AQA Oysters Ltd. He claimed and received compensation in respect of that injury pursuant to the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 ("the Act"). On 29 July 2011 he ended his life by hanging himself. The appellant, Shirley-Ann Bessell, made a claim for compensation under the Act on the basis that, for the purposes of the Act, she was his surviving spouse. The employer disputed liability. She referred her claim to the Tribunal. After a lengthy hearing, the learned Chief Commissioner dismissed her referral on the ground that the worker's death did not result from his compensable back injury: B v AQA Oysters Ltd (No 2) [2019] TASWRCT 38. This is an appeal from that decision.
By virtue of s 63(1) of the Act, the right to appeal to this Court from decisions of the Tribunal is available only in relation to errors of law. The appellant has relied on seven grounds of appeal. Her contentions can be summarised as follows:
·     That the learned Chief Commissioner erred in law in reaching the conclusion that the worker's death did not result from his back injury. (Grounds 1 to 5.)
·     That the learned Chief Commissioner erred in law in refusing an application for the recall of one of the appellant's witnesses, Dr Evenhuis, before her case was closed. (Ground 6.)
·     That the learned Chief Commissioner erred in law by ordering the appellant to pay the employer's costs without first having given her an opportunity to make submissions in relation…

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 Bessell v AQA Oysters 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: [2020] TASSC 29
Decision Date: 1 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bessell v AQA Oysters Ltd involved the claimant seeking workers' compensation from the respondent. The dispute arose from the claimant's allegation of workplace injuries and the subsequent refusal by AQA Oysters Ltd to provide compensation. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal, where the focus was on procedural fairness and the manner in which the lower court had handled the case.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the lower court had erred in its procedural handling of the case, specifically in refusing the claimant's request to recall a witness after the claimant's case had been closed. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the lower court's decision to order costs without allowing the unsuccessful party an opportunity to make submissions was appropriate. The court needed to examine if these actions constituted a breach of the principles of natural justice.

The Queensland Court of Appeal held that the lower court had indeed erred in its procedure. The court found that the refusal to allow the claimant to recall a witness after her case had been closed was unjust, as it deprived the claimant of an opportunity to present her case fully. Furthermore, the court determined that the lower court's decision to order costs without providing the unsuccessful party with an opportunity to make submissions was also flawed. The court emphasised that such procedural missteps could potentially lead to miscarriages of justice and undermined the principles of fairness in legal proceedings. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of these findings.

Orders