Cummings v Melville

Cummings, an applicant, appealed against a decision of an Arbitrator who dismissed his claim for compensation for a work-related injury. The Arbitrator had found that the applicant had failed to prove the extent of his injury and had rejected his evidence as to the extent of his disability. The applicant contended that the Arbitrator had erred in law and fact and should not have exercised his discretion to permit cross-examination of the applicant’s expert witness. The respondent, Melville, argued that the Arbitrator’s findings were correct and should be upheld.

The court considered the Arbitrator’s exercise of discretion to permit cross-examination of the applicant’s expert witness and whether this was an error of law. The court found that the Arbitrator had exercised his discretion correctly and that there was no error of law in the exercise of that discretion. The court also considered whether the Arbitrator had erred in finding that the applicant had failed to prove the extent of his injury. The court found that the Arbitrator had not erred in finding that the applicant had failed to prove the extent of his injury but that the matter should be remitted to an Approved Medical Specialist to assess the percentage permanent loss of sight of the left eye suffered by the applicant.

The court remitted the matter to the Registrar for referral to an Approved Medical Specialist to assess the percentage permanent loss of sight of the left eye suffered by the applicant. The court also ordered that the evidence to be referred to the Approved Medical Specialist was to include all documentary evidence that was before the Arbitrator and the additional evidence, being the records of Dr Wright’s practice concerning treatment of the applicant, admitted on appeal. The court ordered that the respondent was to pay the applicant’s costs of the appeal.