CHALLENGER TAFE -v- SHABAN [2004] WASCA 314

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2004] WASCA 314
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)
Case No:	CIV:2362/2004	Heard:	22 NOVEMBER 2004
Coram:	STEYTLER J TEMPLEMAN J	Delivered:	22/11/04
No of pages:	8	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Application dismissed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	CHALLENGER TAFE JAFAR SHABAN
Catchwords:	Appeals Application for leave to appeal Workers' compensation Employee not provided with appropriate duties and roster Disability from stress Whether denial of "benefit"
Legislation:	Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 5(4)(b)
Case References:	FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (De-Registered) v Goulding [2004] WASCA 167 Trewin v Comcare [1998] FCA 713 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : CHALLENGER TAFE -v- SHABAN [2004] WASCA 314 CORAM : STEYTLER J

TEMPLEMAN J

HEARD : 22 NOVEMBER 2004 DELIVERED : 22 NOVEMBER 2004 FILE NO/S : CIV 2362 of 2004 BETWEEN : CHALLENGER TAFE

Applicant (Appellant)

AND

JAFAR SHABAN

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : COMPENSATION MAGISTRATE'S COURT

Coram : PACKINGTON CM

Citation : SHABAN v CHALLENGER TAFE

File No : CM 62 of 2004

Catchwords:

Appeals - Application for leave to appeal - Workers' compensation - Employee not provided with appropriate duties and roster - Disability from stress - Whether denial of "benefit"

(Page 2)

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981, s 5(4)(b)

Result:

Application dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant (Appellant) : Mr G R Hancy

Respondent : No appearance

Solicitors:

Applicant (Appellant) : Dibbs Barker Gosling

Respondent : No appearance

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

FAI General Insurance Co Ltd (De-Registered) v Goulding [2004] WASCA 167
Trewin v Comcare [1998] FCA 713

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

(Page 3)

1 STEYTLER J: I agree with Templeman J. I would only add in respect of ground 1 that the stress problem which the respondent suffered arose because he was given and had to teach a non-preferred subject which had a number of adverse consequences for him. I would agree entirely with what was said by the Compensation Magistrate in par 72 of his reasons to the effect that it was not the denial of a benefit but the allocation of something that the respondent did not want, in the form of the allocation of subjects he felt he was not competent to teach, which was the source of the problem and also that it was the actual carrying out of those duties which caused the disease.

2 I would also add so far as ground 2 is concerned that the evidence on which the finding was open included evidence from the respondent himself. It is summarised in par 15 of the review officer's findings where the review officer says:

"The applicant explained that his alleged disability arose from the fact that the students were encouraged to complain about him. He was given subjects to teach which he was wasn't competent in. He was given subjects which required a…

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 Challenger TAFE v Shaban

Details

AGLC: Challenger TAFE v Shaban [2004] WASCA 314
Case: [2004] WASCA 314
Decision Date: 22 NOVEMBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Challenger TAFE appealed against the decision of the Primary Judge to dismiss its application for leave to appeal a decision to award damages to an employee, Mr. Shaban, who had suffered stress-related disability. The dispute centred around whether the employee's inability to perform his duties due to stress constituted a "benefit" under the Workers Compensation Act. The Full Bench of the Court of Appeal considered whether the appeal was likely to succeed and if it was in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal.

The court examined the definition of "benefit" under the Act, considering whether Mr. Shaban's stress-related disability qualified as such. The key issue was whether the stress arose from the performance of duties or employment, which would entitle him to compensation. The court also evaluated whether the employer had failed to provide appropriate duties and a roster, leading to the employee's disability.

In dismissing the application for leave to appeal, the court concluded that the appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success. The Full Bench found that the employer's failure to provide appropriate duties and a roster did not amount to a denial of "benefit" under the Act. The court also noted that the Primary Judge's findings were well-reasoned and supported by the evidence. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.