BRENNAN-LIM v Return to Work SA (De Poi Consulting Pty Ltd)

[2016] SASC 100

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA

(Civil: Permission to Appeal in Private)

BRENNAN-LIM v RETURN TO WORK SA (DE POI CONSULTING PTY LTD)

[2016] SASC 100

Judgment of The Honourable Chief Justice Kourakis

1 July 2016

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS - APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES - GENERALLY

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS - GENERALLY - REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - ADEQUACY OF REASONS

Application for permission to appeal to the Full Court of the Supreme Court from a decision of the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal.

The Full Bench of the Tribunal dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Deputy President, relating to the assessment of whole person impairment resulting from a total knee replacement and associated scarring.

The appellant was a rehabilitation consultant who fell at work and suffered aggravation to underlying degenerative changes in her knee.

The appellant appeals on the grounds that the Full Bench erred by holding that the Deputy President’s reasons for his decision were adequate as a matter of law, giving rise to a miscarriage of justice.

The appellant seeks permission to appeal to the Full Court pursuant to s 68 of the South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 (SA).

Held:

1.  Permission to appeal is granted.

South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 (SA) s 68; Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA) s 43A, referred to.

BRENNAN-LIM v RETURN TO WORK SA (DE POI CONSULTING PTY LTD)
[2016] SASC 100

CIVIL

1. KOURAKIS CJ:                 This application for permission to appeal[1] raises the following arguable questions of law:

   (a)Whether the reasons of the Deputy President for finding that the applicant mistakenly testified that her knee pain was constant or intermittent were adequate in law?

   (b)Whether the finding that the applicant was mistaken when she testified that she suffered constant pain was procedurally unfair in that she was not given an opportunity when giving her evidence to comment on the peculiar proposition that she was honest but mistaken in testifying that her pain was constant?

   (c)Whether the Deputy President and the Full Bench erred in the construction given to Table 17.35 of the WorkCover Guidelines for the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment and s 43A(8)(b) of the Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA)?

   [1]    South Australian Employment Tribunal Act 2014 (SA) s 68.

2. Permission to appeal is granted.