Chapels on Whatley v Bedford - [2015] WADC 129

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: CHAPELS ON WHATLEY -v- BEDFORD [2015] WADC 129

CORAM: O'NEAL DCJ

HEARD: 30 SEPTEMBER 2015

DELIVERED : 30 OCTOBER 2015

FILE NO/S: APP 41 of 2015

BETWEEN: CHAPELS ON WHATLEY
Appellant
AND
SHERYN LISA BEDFORD
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)
Coram  :ARBITRATOR HOLYOAK-ROBERTS
File No  :A 11148 of 2014

Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Appeal from Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service - Leave to appeal - Whether an amount of compensation is at issue - Whether on the evidence it was within the power of the arbitrator to find the appellant liable to pay the respondent weekly payments of compensation for partial incapacity - Whether arbitrator gave adequate reasons for decision

Legislation:

Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA) s 57, s 58, s 188(2), s 247(2), sch 1

Result:

Leave granted with respect to ground 1
Appeal allowed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr D R Clyne
Respondent: Mr G J Pynt

Solicitors:

Appellant: Mills Oakley
Respondent: Simon Walters

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

Mitchell v Canal Rocks Beach Resort [2002] WASCA 331
Thomas v Chandler MacLeod [2015] WADC 78
Westralian Farmers Co-operative Ltd v Bunce (Unreported, WASC, Library No 7691, 31 May 1989)

O'NEAL DCJ: This is an appeal pursuant to s 247 of the Workers' Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (the Act) from a decision of an arbitrator of the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service. On 30 and 31 March 2015 the arbitrator heard the respondent's application for weekly payments for total incapacity.
On 18 May 2015 the arbitrator delivered her reasons for decision and made the following orders:
1.The Respondent is liable to pay the Applicant forthwith:
(a)weekly payments of compensation for total incapacity from 31 December 2012 to 1 January 2013;
(b)weekly payments of compensation for partial incapacity from 16 February 2013 onwards.
2.If the parties cannot agree, there is liberty to apply as to costs and quantification of the above orders.
This appeal challenges the power of the arbitrator to make the orders in 1(b) and 2. There is no challenge to order 1(a).

Background

According to the respondent's witness statement tendered before the arbitrator, the respondent has a long and proven track record in sales and retail management. She has also been employed as a medical practice manager and retail store and area manager. She has been a State trainer and State manager as well as working as a general manager in hospitality. She has a number of useful work‑related qualifications and achievements.
Between 2011 and 2013 she was employed in the appellant's café. She commenced paid work for the appellant on 18 April 2011. She was engaged as a general manager. On that same day she was the victim of a rear end collision motor vehicle accident. For present purposes it is sufficient to say that as a result of the motor vehicle accident she was unable to return to work for a period…

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 Chapels on Whatley v Bedford 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] WADC 129
Decision Date: 30 OCTOBER 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chapels on Whatley v Bedford is an appeal by the employer against a decision of the Workers' Compensation Arbitration Service. The dispute involves the liability of the employer to pay the employee weekly payments of compensation for partial incapacity. The employer contends that the arbitrator erred in finding that they were liable to pay such compensation, and that the arbitrator did not provide adequate reasons for their decision. The employer sought leave to appeal the decision, arguing that the amount of compensation was an issue that required judicial determination.

The legal issues before the court were whether the amount of compensation was a matter that fell within the power of the arbitrator to decide, and whether the arbitrator gave adequate reasons for their decision. The court considered the relevant legislative provisions and case law, and found that the amount of compensation was indeed within the power of the arbitrator to determine. The court also found that the arbitrator had provided sufficient reasons for their decision, despite the employer's contention to the contrary.

The court dismissed the employer's appeal, finding that the arbitrator's decision was not erroneous or otherwise flawed. The court held that the amount of compensation was a matter within the power of the arbitrator, and that the reasons provided by the arbitrator were sufficient to support their decision. The employer's argument that the arbitrator had not adequately considered the evidence was rejected by the court, which found that the arbitrator had given proper consideration to all of the evidence before them. The employer's appeal was therefore dismissed, and the decision of the arbitrator stands.

In light of the above, the court makes no orders in relation to costs.

Orders