Bonney v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2015] WASCA 6

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)

CITATION: BONNEY -v- COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD [2015] WASCA 6

CORAM: NEWNES JA
MURPHY JA

HEARD: 3 DECEMBER 2014

DELIVERED : 16 JANUARY 2015

FILE NO/S: CACV 58 of 2014

BETWEEN: JENNIFER BONNEY
Appellant
AND
COMPASS GROUP (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :WISBEY DCJ
File No  :APP 64 of 2013

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Whether grounds of appeal have reasonable prospect of succeeding - Whether primary judge erred in finding that no question of law involved in appeal against decision of arbitrator - Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 247 - Whether appellant denied procedural fairness - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 188(2), s 247, s 254

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Ms H J Osborne

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Jarman McKenna

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

Deeks v Little Moreton Trading Pty Ltd (1995) 14 WAR 58
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA 149; (2004) 29 WAR 273
SNF (Australia) Pty Ltd v Jones [2008] WASCA 121

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an application by the respondent for an order that the appeal be dismissed on the ground that none of the grounds of appeal has any reasonable prospect of succeeding or, alternatively, that the appellant (Ms Bonney) provide particulars of grounds 1 and 3 of her grounds of appeal.
At the hearing of the application on 3 December 2014, Ms Bonney was given leave to file further written submissions by 17 December 2014 and the respondent was to file any submissions in response by 24 December 2014. Each party subsequently filed further written submissions. Those submissions do not add anything of substance.
For the following reasons, we would dismiss the appeal.

Background

Ms Bonney was employed by the respondent from September 2009 until early March 2011.
On 8 August 2012, Ms Bonney filed an application under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (the Act) for a determination of the liability of the respondent to pay her medical expenses and weekly payments of compensation from 21 March 2011 for total incapacity for work. The claim related to two injuries allegedly suffered by Ms Bonney, one on 1 March 2011 and the other on 5 March 2011.
The first injury was to Ms Bonney's left thumb and both knees and was caused by a fall in a carpark at the respondent's Cape Lambert site on 1 March 2011. The second injury was stress‑related. Ms Bonney claimed that she suffered a psychiatric disorder as a result of an incident at work on 5 March 2011, or earlier incidents from in or about September 2009 and culminating with the incident on 5 March 2011, or on 21 March 2011.
The arbitrator upheld…

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 Bonney v Compass Group (Australia) 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: [2015] WASCA 6
Decision Date: 16 JANUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bonney v Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd was a case where the appellant, Ms Bonney, sought to appeal the decision of an arbitrator who had dismissed her claim for compensation under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA). The respondent, Compass Group (Australia) Pty Ltd, filed an application to dismiss the appeal, arguing that none of the grounds of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the primary judge erred in finding that no question of law was involved in the appeal against the decision of the arbitrator, and whether Ms Bonney had been denied procedural fairness.

The legal issues at the heart of the appeal were whether the primary judge was correct in dismissing the appeal on the basis that no question of law was involved, and whether Ms Bonney had been denied procedural fairness. The appellant argued that the arbitrator had failed to consider relevant evidence and had made errors in his assessment of the evidence. She further contended that the primary judge had failed to properly consider her submissions and had erred in law by dismissing the appeal without providing reasons. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the appeal should be dismissed as it had no reasonable prospect of success, and that the primary judge had correctly found that no question of law was involved in the appeal.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had correctly dismissed the appeal. The court held that the appeal against the decision of the arbitrator did not involve any question of law and that the primary judge had not erred in finding that no question of law was involved. The court also found that Ms Bonney had not been denied procedural fairness, as the arbitrator had provided detailed reasons for his decision and had considered all relevant evidence. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and that the primary judge had not erred in dismissing the appeal.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the appeal be dismissed with costs. The Court of Appeal found that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and that the primary judge had not erred in dismissing the appeal. The Court of Appeal further held that the appeal should be dismissed with costs, as the appeal was frivolous and had no reasonable prospect of success.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: This is an application by the respondent for an order that the appeal be dismissed on the ground that none of the grounds of appeal has any reasonable prospect of succeeding or, alternatively, that the appellant (Ms Bonney) provide particulars of grounds 1 and 3 of her grounds of appeal. At the hearing of the application on 3 December 2014, Ms Bonney was given leave to file further written submissions by 17 December 2014 and the respondent was to file any submissions in response by 24 December 2014. Each party subsequently filed further written submissions. Those submissions do not add anything of substance. For the following reasons, we would dismiss the appeal. Ms Bonney was employed by the respondent from September 2009 until early March 2011. On 8 August 2012, Ms Bonney filed an application under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (the Act) for a determination of the liability of the respondent to pay her medical expenses and weekly payments of compensation from 21 March 2011 for total incapacity for work. The claim related to two injuries allegedly suffered by Ms Bonney, one on 1 March 2011 and the other on 5 March 2011. The first injury was to Ms Bonney's left thumb and both knees and was caused by a fall in a carpark at the respondent's Cape Lambert site on 1 March 2011. The second injury was stress‑related. Ms Bonney claimed that she suffered a psychiatric disorder as a result of an incident at work on 5 March 2011, or earlier incidents from in or about September 2009 and culminating with the incident on 5 March 2011, or on 21 March 2011. The arbitrator upheld Ms Bonney's claim in respect of the first injury but dismissed her claim in respect of the stress‑related injury. He gave detailed reasons, running to 97 pages, which included an extensive analysis of the evidence. In relation to Ms Bonney's claim for the stress‑related injury, the arbitrator rejected Ms Bonney's version of the stressful events that had occurred in the workplace and accepted the respondent's version. He found that the stressful events 'were all precipitated by [Ms Bonney's] own unprovoked, unreasonable, angry and aggressive attitude and behaviour' [102]. In the alternative, the arbitrator found that the injury was caused by stress and anxiety which arose predominantly from an excluded matter in s 5(4) of the Act, being disciplinary matters which occurred on 5 March 2011 and subsequently, and a fear or expectation on Ms Bonney's part of dismissal [105]. He further found that any pre‑existing vulnerability arose almost entirely from stress and anxiety in respect of disciplinary matters [108(d)]. In addition, the arbitrator found that none of the disciplinary actions taken by the respondent were unreasonable or harsh [108(e)]. The arbitrator ordered that the respondent pay Ms Bonney weekly payments at the pre‑accident contract rate, plus statutory allowances, for the period 4 April to 2 May 2011 for total incapacity for work, and otherwise dismissed her claim.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.