Cooper v Return to Work Corporation - [2020] SASCFC 94

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Permission to Appeal)
COOPER v RETURN TO WORK CORPORATION
[2020] SASCFC 94
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Justice Stanley, The Honourable Justice Nicholson and The Honourable Justice Parker)
28 September 2020
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW - PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW - FAILURE TO GIVE REASONS FOR DECISION - ADEQUACY OF REASONS
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES - RIGHT OF APPEAL - WHEN APPEAL LIES - ERROR OF LAW - PARTICULAR CASES INVOLVING ERROR OF LAW - DENIAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE
WORKERS' COMPENSATION - PROCEEDINGS TO OBTAIN COMPENSATION - DETERMINATION OF CLAIMS - APPEALS, JUDICIAL REVIEW AND STATED CASES - RIGHT OF APPEAL
Application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Full Bench of the South Australian Employment Tribunal. The Full Bench allowed an appeal brought by the respondent.
The applicant applied to be taken to be ‘seriously injured’ on an interim basis pursuant to s 21(3) of the Return to Work Act 2014 (SA) (‘the Act’). Under this provision, a worker may seek an interim decision to the effect that he or she is taken to be seriously injured pending an assessment of permanent impairment if the respondent is satisfied, or it appears, that the applicant’s injury has or will result in permanent impairment and that the degree of whole person impairment is likely to be 30 per cent or more. The applicant had filed a notice of alternate contentions, which argued that, regardless of the respondent’s grounds of appeal, the appeal should nevertheless be dismissed because the applicant had a 30 per cent whole person impairment in connection with his right knee.
The applicant appeals on the grounds that the Full Bench denied him procedural fairness by not affording him an opportunity to make written or oral submissions on his notice, that the Full Bench erred in misapplying s 21(3) of the Act and the burden of proof, and that the Full Bench failed to provide adequate reasons for rejecting the notice.
Held, (per curiam) refusing permission to appeal:
1. The applicant was not denied procedural fairness. It was a matter for the exercise of the Full Bench’s discretion whether it would hear oral submissions in the circumstances.
2. The applicant misunderstands the approach taken by the Full Bench in their application of s 21(3). The impugned passage is not an analysis of the nature of the burden of proof to be applied to that section, but instead reflects the approach of the Full Bench who were indicating that the respondent had an arguable point which needed to be dealt with on the evidence and that, in the circumstances, could appropriately be dealt with on remission.
3. As to the question of adequate reasons for disposing of the notice of contention, the Full Bench was obliged to expose its reasoning in a way the losing…

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 Cooper v Return to Work Corporation

Details

AGLC: Cooper v Return to Work Corporation [2020] SASCFC 94
Case: [2020] SASCFC 94
Decision Date: 28 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia heard an appeal by Mr. Cooper against a decision of the South Australian Employment Tribunal (SAET) which had dismissed his application for review of a determination made by the Return to Work Corporation. Mr. Cooper sought to have the Corporation's decision, which denied him certain benefits under the *Return to Work Act 2014* (SA), set aside.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether the SAET had erred in law by failing to provide adequate reasons for its decision, and whether this failure amounted to a denial of natural justice. Specifically, the Court was asked to consider if the Tribunal's reasons were so deficient as to prevent Mr. Cooper from understanding the basis of the decision and thus from properly exercising his right of appeal.

The Full Court found that the SAET's reasons for dismissing Mr. Cooper's application were inadequate. The Court held that a failure to provide sufficient reasons for a decision can constitute an error of law, particularly when it prevents a party from understanding the factual and legal basis of the determination and thereby impedes their ability to pursue an appeal. This deficiency was considered to be a denial of procedural fairness, a fundamental aspect of natural justice.

Consequently, the Full Court allowed the appeal, set aside the SAET's decision, and remitted the matter back to the SAET for redetermination according to law.

Orders