CITATION: Chubb Security Australia P/L v Trevarrow [2004] NSWCA 344 HEARING DATE(S): 23 August 2004 JUDGMENT DATE:
22 September 2004JUDGMENT OF: Beazley JA at 1; Santow JA at 2; Ipp JA at 41 DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs. CATCHWORDS: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Workers Compensation - s353 limited appeal from decision of Presidential member of Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales on point of law - whether an error in the application of s9A WCA Act in concluding that employment a substantial contributing factor - whether there was a failure to exercise the Commission's jurisdiction by remitting the matter back to the Arbitrator for determination. LEGISLATION CITED: Workers Compensation Act 1987 s9A
Workers Compensation Legislation Amendment Act 2004 (No 56) s3 and Sch 2[5]; Sch 1[6.2]
Workplace Injuries Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 s352; s353CASES CITED: Australian Wheat Board v Pantaleo (1984) 3 NSWLR 530
Davidson v Mould (1944) 69 CLR 96
Federal Broom Co Pty Ltd v Semlitch (1964) 110 CLR 626
Hatzimanolis v ANI Corp (1992) 173 CLR 473, 8 NSWCCR 242
McMahon v Lagana [2004] NSWCA 164
Mercer v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (2000) 48 NSWLR 740; 20 NSWCCR 70
Mitchell v Central West Health Service (1997) 14 NSWCCR 526 (CA)
Multicultural Affairs v Bhardwaj (2002) 209 CLR 597
Muscat v Woolworths Ltd (2000) 20 NSWCCR 283
Stanton-Cook v TAFE Commission (NSW) (1999) 17 NSWCCR 5
Supair Pty Ltd v Sweeney (2000) 20 NSWCCR 514PARTIES :
CHUBB SECURITY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (Appellant)
Annette TREVARROW (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40239/04 COUNSEL: B FERRARI (Appellant)
A KATZMANN, SC/ B BATCHELOR (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Turks Legal (Appellant)
Bale Boshev Lawyers (Respondent)
LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Workers Compensation Commission LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): WCC 2411-2002 LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER :Byron DP
CA 40239/04
Wcc 2411/0222 SEPTEMBER 2004BEAZLEY JA
SANTOW JA
IPP JA
CHUBB SECURITY AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v Annette TREVARROW
Judgment
1 BEAZLEY JA: I agree with Santow JA.
2 SANTOW JA:
- INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
This appeal is brought from a decision of a Presidential member of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales (‘the Commission’) with respect to a claim by the respondent Ms Annette Trevarrow for injuries sustained on 11 November 2001 in the course of her employment with the appellant Chubb Security Australia Pty Limited (‘Chubb’). The Presidential member, Byron DP, was himself hearing the matter by way of an appeal from a previous determination of the Commission as constituted by an Arbitrator. Ms Trevarrow was successful both before the Arbitrator and before the Deputy President. Chubb now appeals to the Court of Appeal pursuant to s353 of the Workplace Injuries Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (the ‘WIM’ Act). The appeal under s353 is limited to appeals from the decision of a Presidential member in point of law. I should note that as to the later period of partial and total incapacity, from 11 February 2002 till no later than 15 October 2002, the parties have indicated willingness…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd v Trevarrow 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2004] NSWCA 344
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Chubb Security Australia Pty Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision of a Presidential Member of the Workers Compensation Commission of New South Wales. The dispute concerned whether the employment of Mr. Trevarrow was a substantial contributing factor to his injury, as required by section 9A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW).
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Presidential Member erred in law by misapplying section 9A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) in concluding that Mr. Trevarrow's employment was a substantial contributing factor to his injury, and whether the Presidential Member failed to exercise the Commission's jurisdiction by remitting the matter back to the Arbitrator for determination.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that the Presidential Member had correctly applied the principles of section 9A and that there was no error in law in their determination. Furthermore, the Court held that the remission of the matter back to the Arbitrator was a proper exercise of the Commission's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the Presidential Member erred in law by misapplying section 9A of the *Workers Compensation Act 1987* (NSW) in concluding that Mr. Trevarrow's employment was a substantial contributing factor to his injury, and whether the Presidential Member failed to exercise the Commission's jurisdiction by remitting the matter back to the Arbitrator for determination.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. It found that the Presidential Member had correctly applied the principles of section 9A and that there was no error in law in their determination. Furthermore, the Court held that the remission of the matter back to the Arbitrator was a proper exercise of the Commission's jurisdiction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal dismissed with costs.
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.