CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd v Armet - [2020] WADC 85

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH
CITATION:   CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD -v- ARMET [2020] WADC 85
CORAM:   WALLACE DCJ
HEARD:   11 MARCH 2020
DELIVERED          :   11 JUNE 2020
FILE NO/S:   APP 88 of 2019
BETWEEN:   CFC CONSOLIDATED PTY LTD
Appellant
AND
STEPHANE ARMET
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)
Coram:   ARBITRATOR SOH
File Number            :   A49618

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Appeal - Whether common law principles governing admissibility of expert evidence have application - Whether assessment of weight of expert evidence is an error of law - Wrongful finding of fact not an error of law - Irrelevant finding of fact not an error of law

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA)

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant	:	Mr T H Offer
Respondent	:	Ms M Aranda

Solicitors:

Appellant	:	SRB Legal
Respondent	:	Maryse Aranda Lawyers

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

Atanasoska v Inghams Enterprises Pty Ltd [2009] WASCA 17
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Beer v Duracraft Pty Ltd [2004] WASCA 192
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250
BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Treby [2018] WASCA 60
Cape Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Burridge [2019] WADC 105
Erceg v Galati Nominees Pty Ltd [2016] WASCA 112
MacMahon Holdings Ltd v McKenzie [2018] WADC 28
Makita (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705
Marks v Coles Supermarkets [2020] WADC 36
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Al-Miahi [2001] FCA 744
Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60
Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; (2016) 331 ALR 550
Suleski v Pilbarra Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd [2018] WASCA 147

WALLACE DCJ:

On 18 March 2015, whilst the respondent, Mr Stephane Armet, was employed as a labourer with the appellant, CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd, he suffered an injury to his back. He made a claim under the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) (WCIM Act). The appellant accepted liability and commenced weekly compensation payments to the respondent.
On 23 January 2018, the respondent made an application to WorkCover WA (WorkCover) alleging that the ongoing symptoms of pain due to the compensable back injury had caused him to suffer psychiatric injury in the form of an Adjustment Disorder.
The application came on for arbitration at WorkCover on 21 and 22 February 2019 (Arbitration) and by decision dated 24 October 2019 (Decision), which was published on 14 November 2019, a WorkCover arbitrator (Arbitrator) determined liability and ordered the appellant to pay the respondent the sum of $240 in respect of medication expenses and the reimbursement or funding of up to $6,000 for referral to a clinical psychologist for up to 24 treatment sessions, being a reasonable medical expense likely to be incurred under sch 1 cl 17(1) of the WCIM Act.
The appellant appealed the decision to this court by filing an appeal…

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 CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd v Armet 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] WADC 85
Decision Date: 11 JUNE 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd v Armet involved a dispute between a worker and an employer in the context of workers' compensation. The dispute arose after the worker claimed compensation for injuries sustained during his employment. The employer contested the claim, arguing that the worker's injuries were not work-related. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland, where the employer sought to appeal a decision that had been favourable to the worker.

The central legal issue before the court was whether common law principles governing the admissibility of expert evidence applied in workers' compensation matters. The employer argued that the trial judge had erred in law by admitting certain expert evidence that was deemed inadmissible under the common law. The employer further contended that the trial judge's assessment of the weight to be given to expert evidence constituted an error of law. Additionally, the employer argued that the trial judge had made a wrongful finding of fact, which should be grounds for an appeal.

The court held that the common law principles governing the admissibility of expert evidence did not apply in the context of workers' compensation matters. The court reasoned that the statutory framework governing workers' compensation was intended to provide a more streamlined and accessible process for workers to claim compensation. The court further determined that the assessment of the weight of expert evidence was a matter of fact, not law, and therefore not subject to appeal. The court also held that a wrongful finding of fact was not an error of law unless it was so palpably wrong as to amount to a failure to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by the statute. The court concluded that the trial judge's findings were not palpably wrong and therefore did not constitute an error of law. The appeal was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal. The decision in this case highlights the distinction between errors of law and errors of fact in the context of workers' compensation appeals. It also underscores the importance of understanding the specific legal framework governing workers' compensation matters in Australia.

Orders