Challita v Assetlink Services Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 9 min read
WORKERS COMPENSATION COMMISSION
DETERMINATION OF APPEAL AGAINST A DECISION OF THE COMMISSION CONSTITUTED BY AN ARBITRATOR
CITATION: Challita v Assetlink Services Pty Ltd [2014] NSWWCCPD 9
APPELLANT: Rita Challita
RESPONDENT: Assetlink Services Pty Ltd
INSURER: Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (NSW) Ltd
FILE NUMBER: A1-10662/12
ARBITRATOR: Mr J Wynyard
DATE OF ARBITRATOR’S DECISION: 7 November 2013
DATE OF APPEAL DECISION: 27 February 2014
SUBJECT MATTER OF DECISION: Appeal to Presidential member; absence of proper grounds of appeal; absence of proper submissions in support of appeal; unmeritorious appeal; s 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act; Practice Direction No 6; purpose of supplementary submissions; delay in obtaining transcript; obligation on lawyers to take a note of proceedings
PRESIDENTIAL MEMBER: Deputy President Bill Roche
HEARING: On the papers
REPRESENTATION: Appellant: Gerard Malouf & Partners
Respondent: HWL Ebsworth
ORDERS MADE ON APPEAL:

1.     The Arbitrator’s determination of 7 November 2013 is confirmed.

2.     Each party is to pay her or its own costs of the appeal.

INTRODUCTION

  1. This appeal purports to challenge an Arbitrator’s finding that the worker suffered no injury to her neck on or about 24 July 2008. The appeal is unsupported by any proper grounds or submissions and, for the reasons given below, the Arbitrator’s determination is confirmed.

BACKGROUND

  1. The appellant worker, Rita Challita, has claimed lump sum compensation for an alleged injury to her neck and right shoulder that she says occurred in the course of her employment with the respondent, Assetlink Services Pty Ltd, on or about 24 July 2008. The respondent admitted liability for the injury to the right shoulder but disputed that Mrs Challita injured her neck.

  2. Mrs Challita was a cleaner. In a statement dated 7 August 2012, she said she was cleaning walls in the course of her employment on 25 July 2008 when she felt severe pain in her right shoulder and “niggling pain in [her] neck and [her] back as well”. She said that she saw her general practitioner, Dr Sanaa Barich, the next day. Her main complaint was about her right shoulder, but she said she recalled telling Dr Barich of her neck and back.

  3. Mrs Challita’s husband gave evidence, also in a statement dated 7 August 2012, that he recalled his wife complaining of severe pain in her right shoulder and niggling pain in her neck after a strenuous night of cleaning on 25 July 2008. He said that, over time, she continued to complain of “pain and problems to [sic] the neck, right shoulder and also her back”.

  4. The clinical records from Dr Barich revealed that Mrs Challita attended on 25 July 2008 complaining of pain in her right shoulder blade and shortness of breath, but made no reference to any neck or back symptoms. She also attended on 2 August 2008 complaining of shortness of breath and pain in her right chest that radiated into her shoulder blade. The doctor injected the right shoulder with local anaesthetic.

  5. Dr Barich took no history of any work…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Challita v Assetlink Services 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
[2014] NSWWCCPD 9
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Challita v Assetlink Services Pty Ltd, the matter was brought before the court as an appeal against an arbitrator's decision. The dispute between the parties centred around a workers' compensation claim, with Challita, the employee, contesting the decision to reject his claim for compensation. The appeal was lodged with the President of the tribunal, a step that typically requires exceptional circumstances due to the potential delay and cost associated with such an appeal.

The court was tasked with determining whether the appeal was properly founded and if the submissions made were adequate. It was essential to assess whether the appeal was frivolous or vexatious, as outlined under section 352 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act, and whether the practice directions were complied with. The court also had to consider the delay in obtaining the transcript of the proceedings and the responsibility of lawyers to accurately document the proceedings.

The court found that the appeal lacked proper grounds and the submissions did not adequately support the appeal. It was noted that the appellant's legal representatives failed to take a proper note of the proceedings, which contributed to the shortcomings in the appeal. The tribunal emphasised the importance of adhering to practice directions and the obligation of lawyers to ensure accuracy in documentation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as unmeritorious, and the original decision of the arbitrator was upheld. The court also ordered that each party bear their own costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Arbitrator’s determination of 7 November 2013 is confirmed.

2. Each party is to pay her or its own costs of the appeal.

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.