Dodson v Woolworths Group Ltd

Case [2020] WADC 157

JURISDICTION     :   DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CIVIL

LOCATION:   PERTH

CITATION:   DODSON -v- WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED [2020] WADC 157

CORAM:   LONSDALE DCJ

HEARD:   10 JUNE 2020

DELIVERED          :   11 DECEMBER 2020

FILE NO/S:   APP 97 of 2019

BETWEEN:   TRACEY DODSON

Appellant

AND

WOOLWORTHS GROUP LIMITED

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction              :   WORKERS' COMPENSATION ARBITRATION SERVICE (WA)

Coram:   ARBITRATOR MOSS

File Number            :   A49673


Catchwords:

Workers' compensation - Appeal from arbitrator - Alleged recurrence of earlier injury - Whether arbitrator justified in accepting the evidence of an expert over others - Failure to give adequate reasons

Legislation:

Magistrates Court Act 2004 (WA)
Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), s 5(1), s 57B(2)(b), s 213, s 247(2)

Result:

Appeal dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : Mr A Illich
Respondent : Mr B Ullinger

Solicitors:

Appellant : Eureka Laywers
Respondent : SRB Legal

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

Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321

Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139

Beer v Duracraft Pty Ltd [2004] WASCA 192

BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250

BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Treby [2017] WADC 6

Cape Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Burridge [2019] WADC 105

Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266

Cole v P & O Ports Ltd [2002] WASCA 157

Coote v Kelly; Northam v Kelly [2016] NSWSC 1447

Joyce v Anderson [2020] WASCA 48

Leggett v Argyle Diamond Mines Pty Ltd [2000] WASCA 182

Makita (Australia) Pty Ltd v Sprowles (2001) 52 NSWLR 705

Manonai v Burns [2011] WASCA 165

Marks v Coles Supermarkets [2020] WADC 36

Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [No 3] [2008] WASCA 158

Nardi v Department of Education and Training (Unreported, C22/06 9 November 2016)

Nominal Defendant v Cordin [2017] NSWCA 6

Pacific Industrial Co v Jakovljevic [2008] WASCA 60

Rosmini v Chrysler Australia Ltd (1973) 6 SASR 212

State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 73 ALJR 306

LONSDALE DCJ:

Introduction and overview

  1. On 6 April 2010 the appellant injured her back whilst working in the dairy section of Woolworths at the Mandurah Central Shopping Centre.  The appellant had been standing on a roll cage and stacking shelves when a customer bumped the cage causing her to twist sharply and injure her back.

  2. The respondent accepted liability to pay workers' compensation for the appellant's back injuries and paid her compensation until a final medical certificate was issued on 19 October 2011.

  3. In the year 2017 the appellant was suffering back pain for which she sought medical treatment.  She lodged a further claim for workers' compensation on the basis that her symptoms were a recurrence of the injury sustained on 6 April 2010.  The appellant claimed in her most recent application that she had sustained not only back injuries but bilateral leg and ankle injuries.

  4. Dr Kim Toh issued a first certificate of capacity on 12…

Continue reading Dodson v Woolworths Group Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dodson v Woolworths Group Limited [2020] WADC 157
Case
[2020] WADC 157
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dodson v Woolworths Group Ltd, the appellant, Dodson, sought leave to appeal a decision made by an arbitrator under the Workers' Compensation and Rehabilitation Act. The primary dispute involved whether Dodson's current injury was a recurrence of an earlier injury for which he had already received compensation. The crux of the appeal rested on whether the arbitrator was justified in accepting the evidence of one expert over others, and if the arbitrator provided adequate reasons for their decision. The matter was heard by the District Court of Western Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to address were whether the arbitrator erred in law by accepting certain evidence over others without sufficient justification, and if the arbitrator's decision-making process was transparent enough to demonstrate a reasoned approach. The court was required to determine whether the arbitrator's decision involved an error of law that was material to the outcome, and if the reasons provided were adequate to satisfy the legal standards required for judicial review.

The court found that the arbitrator did not commit an error of law that warranted an appeal. The reasoning provided by the arbitrator was deemed sufficient to support the decision, even if it might have been considered illogical by some. The court held that an error of law is not constituted by mere illogic in reasoning, as long as the inference drawn is reasonably open based on the evidence. Therefore, the arbitrator's decision was upheld, and Dodson's appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond dismissing the appeal. The decision stands that the arbitrator's findings and the evidence accepted were within their jurisdiction, and the reasons provided were adequate for the purposes of judicial review.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

The appellant seeks leave to appeal under s 247(2) of the WCIMA which reads:247.Appeal against arbitrator's decision made under Part XI…(2)Subject to subsection (3), the District Court is not to grant leave to appeal unless -(a)in the case of an appeal in which an amount of compensation is at issue -(i)a question of law is involved and the amount at issue in the appeal is both -(I)at least $5 000 or such other amount as may be prescribed by the regulations; and(II)at least 20% of the amount awarded in the decision appealed against;or(ii)a question of law is involved and, in the opinion of the District Court, the matter is of such importance that, in the public interest, an appeal should lie;and(b)in any other case, a question of law is involved. In this appeal, the appellant relies on both s 247(2)(a)(i) and s 247(2)(b). It is not in issue that the amount is worth at best $5,000 or 20% of the amount awarded. Leave may only be granted if 'a question of law is involved'. In order for the appeal to succeed, the appellant must establish that the arbitrator has made an error of law. See Catholic Education Office of WA v Granitto [2012] WASCA 266 [53] - [54]; BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [2008] WASCA 250 [3] Cape Australia Holdings Pty Ltd v Burridge [2019] WADC 105. Any error of law identified must be an error that is material to the decision in the sense that it contributes to the decision and but for the error the decision would or might have been different: Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; BHP Billiton Iron Ore Pty Ltd v Brady [15] (Pullin JA, Buss & Wheeler JJA agreeing). The distinction as to what constitutes an error of fact and an error of law was discussed in the case of Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (355) ‑ (357) (Mason J) said:(4)Review of the Findings of Fact(a)Grounds of Review…The question whether there is any evidence of a particular fact is a question of law: McPhee v S. Bennett Ltd. (46); Australian Gas Light Co. v Valuer-General (47). Likewise, the question whether a particular inference can be drawn from facts found or agreed is a question of law: Australian Gas Light (47); Hope v Bathurst City Council (48). This is because, before the inference is drawn, there is the preliminary question whether the evidence reasonably admits of different conclusions: Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Broken Hill South Ltd (49). So, in the context of judicial review, it has been accepted that the making of findings and the drawing of inferences in the absence of evidence is an error of law: Sinclair v Maryborough Mining Warden (50).But it is said that '[t]here is no error of law simply in making a wrong finding of fact': Waterford v The Commonwealth (51), per Brennan J. Similarly, Menzies J observed in Reg v District Court; Ex parte White (52):Even if the reasoning whereby the Court reached its conclusion of fact were demonstrably unsound, this would not amount to an error of law on the face of the record. To establish some faulty (e.g. illogical) inference of fact would not disclose an error of law.Thus, at common law, according to the Australian authorities, want of logic is not synonymous with error of law. So long as there is some basis for an inference - in other words, the particular inference is reasonably open - even if that inference appears to have been drawn as a result of illogical reasoning, there is no place for judicial review because no error of law has taken place.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.